Findings Of Fact Petitioner represents the owner of the property here involved, St. John's Riverside Estates, and was authorized by the owner to prosecute this appeal (Exhibit 19). Some years ago, circa 1960, the owner of the property dredged canals in each of the two parcels here involved, but the plug between the canals and the St. Johns River was not removed. Petitioner now proposes to remove these plugs and maintenance dredge a channel from the location of the removed plug to the St. Johns River. Spoil from the maintenance dredging will be deposited on lands owned by Petitioner. The existing canals are typical dead-end canals which are stagnant at present. By removing the plugs and opening the canals to the St. Johns River, Petitioner will improve the water quality of these canals. Developing the property along the canals as residential homesites will result in additional nutrients and pollutants entering the canals from surface water runoff. Petitioner proposes to use surface water runoff as one method of flushing the canals. Other flushing action would come from tidal flow in the St. Johns River. Although there was some conflict in the testimony regarding the propriety of using the rainfall from a twenty-five year storm event in lieu of of a one-year storm event to calculate the flushing action of the canals by rainfall, use of surface water to flush the canal appears to violate the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, respecting water quality. As a condition to the development of the property, Respondent could require Petitioner to hold the surface water runoff in retention ponds to reduce the entry of pollutants into the river. If this was done, percolation and evaporation would further create a substantial reduction in flushing from this source. The St. Johns River is a Class III water body of the state. The water quality of the canals here under consideration are below the state water quality standards with respect to dissolved oxygen levels even using the samples taken during the winter months when dissolved oxygen levels are high. (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Generally, dissolved oxygen levels are lower at the bottom of such canals than at the surface. If the samples taken at the surface and bottom during the winter months are averaged for dissolved oxygen content, the result will be above the state minimum water quality standards. However, the dissolved oxygen of samples taken from the canals on May 5 and October 4, 1978, are predominately below the level of 5 mg/l prescribed as the minimum state standard. Removing the plugs would not result in satisfactory flushing of these canals by tidal action. Under the best assumed conditions, it would require 18 tidal cycles or 9 bays to flush 90 percent of the water from these canals by tidal action. An acceptable flushing rate is 2 to 3 days. These canals contain water hyacinths and grasses which increase the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) which reduces the dissolved oxygen level. Not only do these vegetations reduce photosynthesis by shading the water from sunlight, but also when they die and fall to the bottom, they create a high BOD. Considerable evidence was presented depicting the area, the flora and fauna of the area and the present condition of the water quality of these canals. No evidence was presented to the effect that removing the plugs and allowing interchange between the low quality waters of the canals and the higher quality waters of the St. Johns River would not degrade the water quality of the St. Johns River. Also, no evidence was presented that the residential development of the area as proposed would not increase the coliform count, detergent level, or heavy metals content of the waters of the canals which would further cause a degradation of the river water if the plugs are removed and the waters of the river and canals are interchanged.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the application for a surface water management permit (permit no. 4-009-0077AM) filed by the Respondent, David A. Smith (Applicant), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Applicant is the owner of the subject property. The Applicant filed an application for a permit to construct a stormwater management system which was proposed to serve a residential and golf course development to be known as Sabal Hammocks. The site of the proposed project is approximately 720 acres in size and is located in township 24 south, sections 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34, range 35 east, Brevard County, Florida. The entire project site for the Sabal Hammocks development is located within the boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District. To the west of the project site is an 140 acre public park that treats its own stormwater and releases pre-treated stormwater during some storm events into the canals on the Sabal Hammocks site. The Applicant's site is located adjacent to Lake Poinsett and prior uses of the land have included cattle grazing and the cultivation of rye and oats. The Applicant filed his application for the stormwater management permit (permit NO. 4-009-0077AM) on December 22, 1989. That application was deemed complete by the District on June 19, 1990. The District issued a notice of its intended action to approve the permit application on June 28, 1990. Save timely filed a petition challenging the proposed action. By law the District is the appropriate agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications for stormwater management permits within the subject area. Save is an association of individual persons and representatives from groups who utilize the waters of Lake Poinsett and its surrounding areas for recreational and business purposes. The receiving waters for stormwater discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks development will be Lake Poinsett. That water body is classified as Class III waters. Currently, a dike system exists along the southern boundary of the subject property. That dike system separates the internal grazing lands of the parcel from the lower marsh and flooded areas external to the dike. A series of ditches cross the parcel to drain the interior areas. Two agricultural discharge pumps are currently in use at the site. The operation of those pumps has been authorized pursuant to a consent order approved by the District's governing board on December 13, 1990. The dike system on the subject site has been in place since the 1970s. The original construction specifications of the dike are unknown. Sometime in the 1980s, several openings or breaches were cut in the dike system. Those breaches were opened pursuant to permits issued by the District and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) . The breaches were cut to a sufficient width and depth to allow boats to navigate through to interior areas of the subject property during those times when the water levels outside the dike would allow such entrance. The breaches were not cut to ground level and the original dike remained intact and uncompromised by the breaches. That is, the dike has not failed to impede water movement and the integrity of the dike was not weakened by the breaches. The original outline, dimension of the dike, remained visible despite the breaches. In 1986, the Applicant requested permission from the District staff in order to close or restore the dike breaches. At that time, the District staff advised David Smith that a permit would not be required to restore the dike since such improvements would be considered a maintenance exemption. Subsequently, and in reliance upon the representations made by the District's director,, the Applicant closed the breaches and restored the continuity of the dike system of the subject property. The Applicant's work to close the breaches was performed in an open manner, would have been visible to persons using the adjacent marsh or water areas for recreational purposes, and was completed at least one year prior to the application being filed in this case. Neither the District nor DER has asserted that the work to complete the original dike in the 1970s, nor the breaches completed in the 1980s, nor the restoration of the breaches in 1986 was performed in violation of law. Further, the District had knowledge of the subject activities. Save contends that the restoration of the dike system was contrary to law and that it was not afforded a point of entry to contest the closure of the breaches. Additionally, Save infers that the original construction of the dike system in the early 1970s was without authorization from authorities. Save's contention is that the prior condition of the property, ie. the parcel with breached openings, must be considered the correct pre- development condition of the land. The District, however, considered the pre- development condition of the parcel to be that of a diked impoundment separated from Lake Poinsett. The same assumption was made regarding the pumping of water from the area enclosed by the dike via an existing 36 inch pump which discharges to Bass Lake (and then to Lake Poinsett) and an existing 12 inch pump that discharges into the marsh areas adjacent to the property (between it and Lake Poinsett). The District's consideration of the site and the application at issue was based upon the actual condition of the land as it existed at the time this application was filed. The pre-development peak rate and volume of discharge from the site was calculated based upon the maximum discharge capacity of the two existing pumps (described above). Accordingly, the maximum pre-development rate of discharge from the two existing pumps is in the range of 90-107 cubic feet per second. The pre-development volume of discharge, based upon actual pump records, was calculated as 710 acre-feet for a 25 year, 96 hour storm event. The total areas encompassed by the Applicant's proposal are the 720 acre site where the golf course and residential homes will be located together with 140 acres from an adjacent public park. The runoff entering the stormwater system from that public park will have already been treated in its own stormwater management system. The Applicant's proposed stormwater system will consist of a series of lakes and interconnected swales. This wet detention system will capture the runoff and direct its flow through the series of swales and lakes via culverts. The waters will move laterally from the northwestern portion of the parcel to she southeastern end of the site. From the final collecting pond, she waters will be pumped to Bass Lake and ultimately flow to Lake Poinsett. Wet detention systems generally provide greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment systems. The maintenance associated with these systems is also considered less intensive than other types of treatment systems. The wet detention system proposed for Sabal Hammocks accomplishes three objectives related to the flow of stormwater. The first objective, the collection of the. stormwater, requires the creation of several lakes or pools into which water is directed and accumulates. The size and dimension of the lakes will allow the volume of accumulated water to be sufficient to allow stormwater treatment. The capacity of the lakes will also provide for a sufficient volume to give adequate flood protection during rainfall events and storms. The second objective, the treatment of the stormwater, requires the creation of a littoral zone within the system. The littoral zone, an area of rooted aquatic plants within the lakes or ponds, provide for the natural removal of nutrients flowing into the system. The plants serve as a filtering system whereby some nutrients are processed. The proposed littoral zone in this project constitutes approximately 37 percent of the detention system surface area and therefore exceeds District size requirements. The depth of the treatment volume for the proposed system will not exceed 18 inches. A third objective accomplished by the creation of the series of lakes is the provision for an area where pollutants flowing into the detention system may settle and through sedimentation be removed from the water moving through the system. The average residence time estimated for runoff entering the Sabal Hammocks detention system is 48 days. The permanent pool volume will, therefore, be sufficient to assure the proposed project exceeds the District's requirements related to residence time. The design and volume of the Sabal Hammocks system will also exceed the District's requirements related to the dynamic pool volumes. In this case the Sabal Hammocks system will provide for approximately 65 acre-feet of runoff. Thus, the proposed system will adequately control and detain the first 1 inch of runoff from the site. The length to width ratio for the proposed lakes, 18:1, exceeds the District's minimum criteria (2:1). The final lake or pond into which the stormwater will flow will be 17 acres and will have 15 acres of planted wetland vegetation. Before waters will be released into Bass Lake, the site's runoff will pass through 3100 linear feet of this final lake before being discharged. The proposed project will eliminate the two agricultural pumps and replace them with one pump station. That station will contain four pumps with a total pumping capacity of 96 cubic feet per second. Under anticipated peak times, the rate of discharge from the proposed single station is estimated to be less than the calculated peak pre-development rate of discharge (90-107 c.f.s.). The estimated peak volume of discharge will also be lower than the pre-development discharge volumes for the comparable storm events. The proposed pump station is designed to be operated on electrical power but will have a backup diesel generator to serve in the event of the interruption of electrical service. Additionally, the pumps within the station will be controlled by a switching device that will activate the pump(s) only at designated times. It is unlikely that all four pumps will activate during normal rainfall events. The Applicant intends to relinquish maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system including the pump station to Brevard County, Florida. Finished floor elevations for all residential structures to be built within the Sabal Hammocks development will be at a minimum of 18.2 mean sea level. This level is above that for a 100 year flood. The floor elevations will be at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation even in the event of the dike or pump failure or both. Finished road elevations for the project will be set at 17.5 feet mean sea level. This elevation meets or exceeds the County's requirements regarding the construction of roadways. It is estimated that the Sabal Hammocks system will retain at least 26 percent of all storm events on site. If the lake system is utilized to irrigate the golf course the proposed system could retain 45 percent of all storm events on site. Of the 31.27 acres of wetlands within the proposed site, only 4.73 acres of wetlands will be disturbed by the construction of this project. Some of the wetlands are isolated and presently provide minimal benefits to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species. No threatened or endangered species are currently utilizing the isolated wetlands. The areas of wetlands which are productive and which will be disturbed by the development will be replaced by new wetlands to be created adjacent to their current location at a lower elevation. The new wetlands should provide improved wetland function since those areas will be planted with a greater diversity of wetland plant species. Additionally, other wetland areas will be enhanced by the removal of invader species and increased hydroperiod in the area. The integrated pesticide management plan for the proposed project will be sufficient with the additional condition chat use of Orthene, Subdue, and Tersan LSR will be authorized when approved insecticides or fungicides have not been effective. In this case, the estimates regarding the water quality for the proposed project were based upon data from studies of multifamily residential projects. Data from single family/ golf course developments was not available. Therefore, based upon the data used, the projected runoff concentrations for this project should over estimate pollutants and are more challenging to the treatment system than what is reasonably expected to occur. In this regard, the overall treatment efficiencies are estimated to be good for all of the parameters of concern with the exception of nitrogen. The projected increase in nitrogen, however, will not adversely impact the receiving water body. The projected average concentration for each constituent which may be discharged is less than the state standard with the exceptions of cadmium and zinc. In this regard, the District's proposed conditions (set forth in the District's exhibits 4 and 9) adequately offset the potential for a violation of state water quality standards. More specifically, the use of copper-based algaecides in the stormwater management system should be prohibited; the use of galvanized metal culverts in the stormwater management system, or as driveway culverts, should be prohibited; and the use of organic fertilizers or soil amendments derived from municipal sludge on the golf course should be prohibited. Additionally, a water quality monitoring plan should be implemented by the Applicant. The monitoring plan mandates the collection of water samples from areas in order to adequately monitor the overall effectiveness of the treatment facility. The source of cadmium is not be expected to be as great as projected since the most common source for such discharge is automobiles. It is unlikely that the golf course use will generate the volume of discharge associated with automobile use that the multifamily data presumed. The projected quality of the discharges from this project should be similar to the ambient water quality in Lake Poinsett. In fact, the post- development pollutant loading rates should be better than the pre-development pollutant loading rates. The discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in Lake Poinsett nor will the groundwater discharges violate applicable state groundwater quality standards. The floodways and floodplains, and the levels of flood flows or velocities of adjacent water courses will not be altered by the proposed project so as to adversely impact the off- site storage and conveyance capabilities of the water resource. The proposed project will not result in the flow of adjacent water courses to be decreased to cause adverse impacts. The proposed project will not cause hydrologically-related environmental functions to be adversely impacted The proposed project will not endanger life, health, or property. The proposed project will not adversely affect natural resources, fish and wildlife. The proposed project is consistent with the overall objectives of the District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the governing board of the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the application for permit number 4-009-0077AM with the conditions outlined within the District's exhibits numbered 4, 8, and 9 and as previously stated in the notice of intent. DONE and ENTERED this 2 day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2 day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5247 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. 8 Paragraphs 13 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 26 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 34 it is accepted that compensating storage was not required. Otherwise, unnecessary, irrelevant, or comment. With regard to paragraph 35, it is accepted the proposed system meets the first 1 inch of runoff requirement otherwise, unnecessary or irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 41 are rejected as irrelevant, argumentative or comment. Paragraphs 42 and 43 are accepted. With the deletion of the last sentence which is irrelevant, paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraphs 44 through 49 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 50 is accepted, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 52 through 56 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted. Paragraphs 59 and 60 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or argumentative. Paragraphs 61 and 62 are accepted. The first sentence of Paragraph 63 is accepted. The remainder of the Paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed project will benefit the wetland areas in an unquanitifiable measure due to the enhancements to prior wetlands and the creation of new wetlands. The first sentence of paragraph 64 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 65 is accepted. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is accepted. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are accepted. Paragraph 70 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are accepted. Paragraph 74 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary. Paragraphs 75 through 78 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 79 through 82 are accepted. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are rejected as argument or comment. It is accepted that the Corp and DER are aware of the restoration of the dike and that neither has asserted such work was performed contrary to law. Paragraph 86 is rejected as comment on the evidence or irrelevant. It is accepted that the District advised Applicant that he could restore the dike system and that the District was apprised of the completion of that work. With regard to paragraph 87, it is accepted that the restoration of the dike entailed filling the breaches to conform to the dike's original design; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 88 and 89 and the first sentence of Paragraph 90 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 90 and Paragraphs 91 through 93 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment. Paragraph 94 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT: Paragraphs 1 through 78 is accepted. Paragraph 79 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 80 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY SAVE: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary D. Hansen 1600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Suite 300 Daytona Beach, Florida 32119 Brain D.E. Canter HABEN, CULPEPPER, DUNBAR & FRENCH, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wayne Flowers Jennifer Burdick St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178
The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for a variance, after the fact, from Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In early 1981, petitioner White began putting in pilings on Lot 3, Block 6 of Chippewa Subdivision on the north shore of Choctawhatchee Bay in Walton County. The waters of Choctawhatchee Bay are Class II and the Department of Natural Resources has approved them for shellfishing. With a gas powered pump, petitioner jetted in two rows 40 feet long and ten feet apart of five pilings each and also built a bulkhead paralleling the rows of pilings and ten feet landward of them. On this foundation, he constructed a floor, including a porch floor cantilevered ten feet out waterward of the watermost row of pilings. Work had progressed through most, if not all, uprights on the first floor when the project came to the attention of state and federal environmental authorities, courtesy of a neighbor with whom petitioner had quarrelled (after the neighbor cut down trees on petitioner's property, to improve his view of the Bay). Construction has been at a standstill since. The bulkhead stands against the face of a bluff 20 feet high that is eroding not only as a result of wave action but also because of the deteriorating effect of groundwater in the area. Erosion is occurring at the rate of two feet or more annually. (Testimony of Kerr) There has been no appreciable scouring in front of the bulkhead or the pilings because old tires have been placed in an arc in front of the structure as a sort of revetment. The tires interrupt littoral movement of sand and exacerbate erosion downshore. Although waves can break against the base of the bluff itself, the approximate mean high water line at the time of the hearing was two to three feet landward of the first row of pilings. An area behind the first row of pilings is regularly and periodically inundated. When the pilings were originally placed, the approximate mean high water line was waterward of the pilings. NAVIGATION At high tide water underneath the house and even under the porch is only a few inches deep. Any boat tall enough to hit the porch would draw enough to run aground before getting that far. Ongoing erosion might result in deeper water at some point in the indeterminate future. VEGETATION In the beach area at the base of the bluff, including the project site at the time construction began, giant reed (phragmites communis) and salt meadow cord grass (spartina patens) are the predominant plant species. In full sunlight giant reeds grow as tall as eight feet and spartina patens gets as high as two or three feet. On top of the bluff are sand pine, slash pine, longleaf pine, magnolia, live oak, scrub oak, yaupon, ilex and other upland species. A few upland plants have fallen down from the top of the bluff and taken root at the base of the bluff, but they are a decided minority. There was little vegetation, mainly dewberries, under the half finished house at the time of hearing. According to the uncontroverted evidence, the United States Army had been on maneuvers in the vicinity and some of the approximately 29,000 men involved had selected the area underneath petitioner's structure as their bivouac, trampling the giant reeds and spartina patens underfoot. The giant reeds are rhizomatic and will inevitably reestablish themselves. The structure is high enough above the beach that enough sunlight will reach the ground for spartina patens to grow again, as well. Because of the shadow cast by the structure, however, the mass of the vegetation in the immediate area will be somewhat less than if the sun's rays were wholly unobstructed. These plants provide a habitat for fish, crabs and birds. They are food for microorganisms and larger forms of life alike. Their own food includes nitrogen, phosphorous, potash and carbon, all of which they tend to remove from water running off into the Bay, averting eutrophication. They also take up heavy metals, oils and greases which are washed down from State Road 20 just north of the site. OTHER STRUCTURES, PERMITS About two miles east of petitioner's lot are a house and a bar built on pilings pretty much in the same fashion as the house petitioner has started. They have been there at least since 1970. The Department of Environmental Regulation never issued any permit for their construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation has never permitted the building of a residence, part of which extended over navigable waters. The Department of Natural Resources has issued no permit in connection with petitioner's property or otherwise authorized the use of sovereignty lands or air space above such lands. WASTE DISPOSAL Petitioner had originally planned to install a septic tank on the state right of way, waterward of State Road 20, to receive both sewerage and other wastewater ("grey water"). The DOT had in fact issued a use permit to petitioner authorizing the installation, but DOT only considers highway safety in issuing such permits, and has since revoked the permit it issued to petitioner, pending his obtaining a septic tank permit from the local health department. Percolation tests, which are required before the local health department acts, have not been done. At the hearing, petitioner altered and supplemented his proposal for disposing of waste: He proposed to install a special composting toilet and, instead of a septic tank, a holding tank with a gauge that would indicate the level of grey water in the tank. HARDSHIP Petitioner owns no real estate other than the lot on which he began building this house. He now shares living quarters with his daughter and his widowed mother, who sleeps in the living room. His mother likes to paint, particularly sunsets. He started this project with the intention of building a place for her to live. Petitioner spent time and money on this project in the belief that the county building permit he obtained fully authorized him to do so. He had spoken to a man who built a similar house who said as much. If he is not allowed to use this structure, he will get no benefit from the time and money he has expended in constructing it to this point.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for variance. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By application filed on September 9, 1980, Respondent/Applicant, John H. Land Builders, Inc., sought a permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), to conduct dredge and fill activities in an approximate one acre area located in the southeast corner of a proposed housing development in Section 10, Township 29 South, Range 19 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida. A copy of this permit application may be found as DER Composite Exhibit B. Specifically, Land sought to excavate 4,100 cubic yards of material (muck) and to backfill the area with 14,400 cubic yards of granular material from adjacent uplands to allow for development of a street and building lots in an unnamed wetland. A permit from DER is required because the project involves a wetland that is contiguous with a ditch that connects to the Palm River, all of which constitute waters of the State that are subject to dredge and fill permitting requirements. The plans have been reviewed by other state and local authorities in the Hillsborough County area, and no adverse comments have been received. After the installation is completed, the elevation of the land will be raised, and will permit five homesites to be built on the land as well as the construction of an access road to the property from an adjacent street. The installation in question is but a small part of a larger proposed housing development known as Timberlake Subdivision that will ultimately involve more than 300 homesites. However, no further dredge and fill activities under DER jurisdiction will be undertaken. The proposal of Respondent/Applicant was received by the Department and certain timely additional requests were made from the Department to the Applicant to provide information necessary to evaluate the request for permit. Applicant subsequently furnished the required information, and it may be found in DER Exhibit C. The Department performed a field inspection and review of the dredge and fill site, including the surrounding areas, to assess the impact of water quality caused by proposed dredging and filling activities in wetlands areas. It concluded that the Applicant had affirmatively provided reasonable assurance to the Department that the short-term and long-term effects of the activity would not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the permit application appraisal may be found in DER Exhibit A. On January 21, 1981, DER issued its Intent to Issue a dredge and fill/water quality certification with certain conditions therein, including the requirement that future development be dependent upon separate stormwater review by the Department (DER Exhibit D). On October 20, 1980, Applicant filed a Notice of Stormwater Discharge with the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa (DER Composite Exhibits B & F). Thereafter, the Department conducted a field inspection and review of the proposed housing development and surrounding areas to determine whether the proposed stormwater discharge would have a significant impact on water quality. Based upon the results of that inspection, which concluded that the proposed discharge would not have a significant impact on the waters of this State, the Department issued Applicant a stormwater exemption on November 7, 1980. The project site is located in an unnamed wetlands area. It is weedy and has a dense cover of primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), willow (Salix caroliniana), cattail (Typha sp.), red maple (Ace rubrum) and is overgrown with grapes vines (Vitus rotendifolia). It lies just to the north of a series of fish farms owned by Petitioner, Penisular Fisheries, Inc. Other commercial industries and single family dwellings are found south of the proposed activities. To the west and northwest lie marshlands, two old borrow pits, and Interstate Highway 4. Water runoff from the dredge and fill area will flow to the storm drainage system in the proposed street, and from there to a designated retention pond. Because there will be minor contaminants in the runoff, the water will be retained for treatment for a period of five days, which exceeds the 100 hour retention period required by DER. After treatment, the runoff will flow into a well-defined county drainage ditch west of 58th Street, travel down the ditch which lies adjacent to the fish ponds, and then meander into the existing marshland. Water runoff from the remainder of the project (excluding the dredge and fill area) will drain into the two existing borrow pit lakes which lie close to Interstate Highway 4. The designated retention pond will be located west of the project and has a controlled spill-off elevation. It will provide sufficient treatment to and cleaning of the water to insure that no violation of water quality standards will occur. A stormwater system to be constructed by Applicant will actually reduce the volume of water runoff now occurring. Reasonable assurances have been given that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Based upon Use location of the point of discharge of Land's proposed stormwater discharge, the volume and frequency of discharge for which the proposed facilities are designed, and the anticipated constituents of discharge, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the water quality of the waters of this State. Accordingly, the exemption from stormwater licensing requirements was properly issued by the Department. Water quality violations which were alleged to have existed in a ditch on property adjoining the properties of Land and Petitioners were the subject of a notice of violation issued to the owners of that property. However, no notice of violation was ever issued to Land. Further, the ditch is not a part of the installation proposed by Applicant for issuance of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioners' concern is that Applicant has not given reasonable assurance that water quality standards would not be violated by the stormwater discharge and that downstream waters might be contaminated by urban runoff from the project. In reaching that conclusion, Petitioners' expert relied on a review of certain materials submitted to him by Petitioner's counsel. He did not visit the project site, nor had he reviewed drainage plans or construction drawings for drainage improvements contemplated by the notice of stormwater discharge filed by Land.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation grant the requested dredge and fill permit/water quality certification to Respondent/Applicant John H. Land Builders, Inc. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order confirming the stormwater exemption issued by the Department to Respondent/Applicant on November 7, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact By various purchases during the period 1967-1969, Petitioner acquired over 14,000 acres of land in the eastern sector of central Florida. About 12,000 acres of the land lie in Volusia County and the remainder in the northern part of Brevard County. Petitioner registered various public offering statements for resale of this land with the Florida Land Sales Board. In 1967, pursuant to an act of the State Legislature, the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida entered judgment creating and incorporating the South County Drainage District which included Petitioner's land in Volusia County. Later attempts by judicial action to extend the Drainage District boundary lines to include Petitioner's land in Brevard County were unsuccessful. A 1967 agreement between Petitioner and the Drainage District provided that a drainage plan would be implemented by the District with funds for construction being advanced by Petitioner. This plan consisted of dead-end graded roads and a system of ditches and canals that were to be constructed and maintained by the Drainage District, with purchasers of the property to be assessed for the cost of the facilities. In 1972, Volusia County adopted a home rule charter which abolished the South County Drainage District and transferred its powers and functions to the county. In 1973, an agreement was entered into between Petitioner and Volusia County providing for the transfer to the county of the functions, responsibilities, and obligations of the Drainage District, and assigning to Petitioner the right to petition the State for approval of the drainage plan. Under the agreement, a Special Improvement District was created by the County (testimony of Trella, Maise1, Exhibits 1, 2, 25, 26, 27). The land acquired by Petitioner had been designated as Cape Atlantic Estates and was divided into tracts or lots in a grid system which was a series of rectangular squares with intersecting roads. Initially, the tracts were two and 1/2 acres each and eventually they were halved and sold in one and 1/4 acre plots. A typical offering statement provided that the "predeveloped tracts" were subject to road and drainage rights-of- way, and that purchasers, after paying their contracts in full, would receive free and clear title to the property. It was further stated that physical access would be obtained over rough graded dirt roads to be completed by December 31, 1973, and that when drainage facilities were completed the land would be dry. It was specifically pointed out that it was not a "homesite" offering nor was it part of a recorded plat, but offered as part of a section, township and range. However, the statement also noted that facilities such as elementary schools, churches, and fire, and police protection were available in neighboring communities. It also indicated that there was no water supply, sewage, public utilities, or public transportation to the property. Sales commenced in 1967 and, by the middle of 1971, approximately 98 percent of the tracts had been sold, primarily to out-of-state purchasers. The bulk of the sales were made by telephone contacts initiated by Petitioner's salesmen. Some 5,000 purchasers bought tracts in the development on contracts which were of eleven to twelve years in duration. The property in question is described as coastal low lands that consist of essentially level terraces. The surface drainage of the land is poorly-developed and inefficient. The terraces begin at the Atlantic Ocean on the east and progress westward to a maximum altitude of about 29 feet in the project area. The Atlantic coastal ridge functions as a divide between the St. Johns river and the coastal drainage basin called Turnbull Hammock. West of the ridge, surface drainage generally is toward the St. Johns river, and east of the ridge drainage is into Turnbull, Hammock which leads to Turnbull Creek and thence to the Indian River. The region has large swamp and marshland areas and sandy surface soils which are intermittently underlain by hardpan at shallow depths which impedes rainfall infiltration. Much of the area is covered with ponds during the wet season creating swampy conditions. The climate supports heavy growth of native pine and scrub oak trees in the sandy soils. Cypress trees prevail in the wet bottomlands. Turnbull Hammock occupies the eastern quarter of the tract and is flat and heavily-wooded. It serves as a catchment for surface runoff from the lands immediately to the west and also for lands outside and north of the project. The Turnbull Hammock natural drainage basin involves about 48 square miles. Highway 1- 95 - traverses the center of the area in a north-south direction. The land is in a primitive state and is mostly unused with the exception of minor cattle grazing areas. Subsurface water leaving the Cape Atlantic Estates to the east surfaces in the Turnbull Hammock and drains to the south into the Indian River. On the west side, the tendency of the water is to move west and surface in cypress sloughs, eventually reaching Buck Lake, an area to the southwest. During flood conditions, when surface waters are high, the western subsurface water could make its way in time to the St. Johns River. The original drainage plan was aimed at decreasing the retention of surface water and using controlled measures to improve runoff in order to prevent flooding and soil erosion. Some nine percent of the property has standing water or ponding and, although in many of the sand ridges, this is not a serious problem because the rainfall quickly dissipates into the soil, in those areas were the soil is heavily interspersed with hardpan, there is slow percolation. Some 26 percent of the land area floods during rain showers. The plan was to remove the standing surface water by a network of canals, ditches and swales and, to achieve these goals, regulating devices were to be installed at two major discharge points of the system. The plan incorporated a main canal located just west of 1-95 which would drain the western Volusia County portion of the project area through an existing 9' X 12' double box culvert under 1-95 into a north outfall canal and ultimately into Turnbull Hammock. The remaining portion of the western section, some 2300 acres in Brevard County, was planned to be drained to the south whereby water would exit the property through a 142 acre storage reservoir that was considered to have sufficient capacity to retain the water during a 50 year flood condition and yet not exceed the existing natural discharge rate. Since Turnbull Hammock is considerably lower than the western side of the property, a self regulating control gate was considered necessary to maintain the water level of the canal in Volusia County at a level of 21 feet mean sea level. In the Brevard County portion, the main canal water level was designed to be kept at an elevation of 20 feet mean sea level by a fixed control structure at the reservoir discharge. It was planned that water would be collected from the area by lateral swales and ditches which would flow into the main canal (testimony of Trelia, Garcia; Exhibits 2,3,4 & 15). The main canal for the project was constructed in 1970. This canal generally parallels the west side of 1-95 in the project area and is approximately 14 1/2 miles in length, some 90 to 100 feet wide and five to six feet in depth. It had been estimated that all the improvements for the project would be completed by December 31, 1973. In early 1971, the Drainage District was in the design stages for the next phase when it learned that Volusia County had adopted the home rule charter that abolished, the South County Drainage District. At this point, work on the project stopped and nothing further was done toward completion of the improvements to the land. In the middle of 1972, after negotiations with Volusia County, Petitioner became aware that various state agencies, same of which had come into being since the original purchase of the land, might have some responsibility in connection with the project. The Department of Pollution control, Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund were contacted to see if they had any requirements as to the proposed improvements. The Department of Pollution control was the only agency which expressed an interest or concern in the matter. Petitioner also ceased sales in the middle of ;1972 after discussions with the Florida Land Sales Division, because of the uncertainty of the situation at that time. During the remainder of 1972, Petitioner's representatives had various discussions with officials of the Department of Pollution Control at Tallahassee, but was advised that nothing definitive could be accomplished on the drainage plan pending a resolution of the status of the South County Drainage District which was in litigation at the time. Around October, 1972, as a result of discussions with various county officials and the Department of Pollution Control, Petitioner decided that an environmental impact study would be, beneficial and therefore retained the services of Brevard Engineering Company of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to make such an environmental assessment of Cape Atlantic Estates. This report was completed in February, 1973, and transmitted to the Department of Pollution Control in April. Although there were numerous conversations with Tallahassee representatives of the Department of Pollution Control during the remainder of the year, it was not until early 1974 that petitioner was advised it should start discussing the matter with the Department's central regional office in Orlando. A meeting was held at Orlando between Petitioner's representatives and officials of the regional office in March, 1974 at which time the details of the project were reviewed. Mr. Woods, the regional engineer for the Orlando office at that time, indicated that he wished to study the matter further because he was not familiar with the environmental study which had been received from their Tallahassee office. There followed a field trip to the project area where Mr. Garcia, the project engineer,, and two members of the Orlando regional office of the Department, Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Medley, looked over the area. In April, 1974, there was another meeting with Mr. Woods at which time he indicated that the project would be approached by the Department as a potential pollution source at any points where the waters went outside the property boundaries. This was followed up by a letter from Mr. Woods received by Petitioner in June, 1974, which stated that in view of the primary interest of his office to protect and preserve water quality as to the project, it was recommended that strong consideration be given to modifying the drainage plan to allow for reduction in the following areas: Draining of swamps, marshes, and wet lands which is in general detrimental to water quality by the removal of natural filtration and assimilative systems from the service of treatment of stormwater runoff. Introduction of canals and artificial waterways degrade water quality by virtue of their stagnating effect and general magnification of adverse effects in (1) above by lowering the ground water table. Transporting of water across natural barriers and separate watersheds is generally detrimental to water quality by virtue of a net change of flow patterns and characteristics by reducing or increasing the normal waterbudget in the area. Mr. Woods also pointed out in his letter that, although it was recognized the gridiron pattern of the project made maximum utilization of the available land his office felt that a significant reduction in adverse effects as indicated could be achieved by utilizing the natural systems as much as possible, and that this would require maximum utilization of the existing wetlands, provisions for on-site retention if and where practical, and selective planting to provide for natural filtration and nutrient assimilation. He further indicated that it would be necessary to obtain a water quality certification from his Department, that Petitioner must show the facilities would be properly constructed and operated, and would be required to produce evidence that either the county or the drainage district was in a position to assume responsibility as the permittee (testimony of Trella, Garcia; Exhibit 10). After receipt of the letter from Mr. Woods, Petitioner engaged the firm of Frederic R. Harris, Inc., consulting engineers, of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to prepare a definite project report on drainage that would provide modifications of the drainage plan in order to comply with the objections posed in the Woods letter. This report as prepared by John W. Blue, professional engineer and, although dated September 1974, was available in final form in August at which time a meeting was held between Petitioner's representatives and the successor regional engineer in Orlando, Mr. Thomas Hunnicutt. The meeting was held on August 6, and in attendance were Mr. Gene Medley and Mr. James Hulbert of the regional staff. At this meeting, Mr. Hunnicutt was acquainted with the project and the letter from Mr. Woods, and given the "Harris" report for consideration. This report reflected Petitioner's attempts to satisfy the objections of the department by incorporating the following features in the plan: Specifications to prevent the conveyance of oils, chemicals, silt or other pollutants into the drainage waters during project construction. Planting grass on the erodible earth surfaces exposed during construction. Preservation of about 200 acres of natural hammock ponding sites. Designation of about 75 acres of natural overflow retention areas for filtration of roadside ditch runoff. Construction of about 70 acres of artificial overflow retention areas for filtration of lateral and runoff. Provision for about 209 acres of natural water spreading areas at canal and outfall terminals. Avoidance of direct connections between drainage canals and watercourses or estuaries. Utilization of about 127 acres of dug ponds and existing borrow pits for regulation of runoff peaks. Overexcavation of canals and laterals to make permanent ponds. Whereas the report of the Brevard Engineering Company had been based on a 50 year flood condition, the Harris Report was based primarily upon 10 and 25 year flood conditions. There was a misunderstanding as to Mr. Hunnicutt's comments to Petitioner at this meeting. Petitioner claims Hunnicutt had then stated that the project was in good order and that they should proceed to file their application for a permit. On the other hand, Hunnicutt testified that his remarks were predicated on the fact that since Petitioner had indicated it had made all of the modifications in the project that could he done (by virtue -of the grid system that could not be modified) , he therefore felt there was no point in further discussion. He also was of the opinion that there was sufficient information available at that time to permit consideration of an application by the Department. The Petitioner was provided blank copies of a form entitled Application To Construct/Operate Pollution Sources" (Exhibit 5), and, although Mr. Hunnicutt then acknowledged that this form did not apply too well to the endeavor under consideration he told Petitioner that they should go ahead and file the forms, at Tallahassee, attaching all supporting evidence. The application was filed in the joint names of Volusia County and Atlantic International Investment Corporation and signed by the president of the corporation. It was dated September 9, 1974, and submitted and delivered to the Respondent in Tallahassee on September 10, 1974, with a copy being given to the Orlando regional office. Other than receiving a letter dated October 25, 1974, from the Department of Natural Resources indicating that a water quality certification would not be required for the project, Petitioner heard nothing further from the Respondent until it received a letter from Mr. Hunnicutt denying the permit, dated November 6; 1974. This letter said that the regional staff had reviewed the application and based thereon, plus reviews and comments from Brevard and Volusia County Environmental Control, the permit was recommended to be denied because the applicant had not given the Department "reasonable assurance that the results of this project will be in accord with applicable laws, rules and regulations" and that the project "will have significant adverse effects on water quality as well as the aquatic resources in the area. It further stated that pursuant to Chapter 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 4.07, Florida Administrative Code, the permit was denied and that Petitioner had a right to request a hearing as provided under Chapter 17-4.15, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner filed its petition for review of the denial of the permit under the aforesaid Chapter 17-4.15, Florida Administrative Code on November 15, 1974 (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 16; testimony of Mr. Garcia, Mr. Hunnicutt). In processing the application, Mr. Hunnicutt assigned it to Mr. Medley of his office for review. Medley proceeded to contact local agencies including the Volusia County and Brevard County Environmental Sections; Volusia County Public Works Department, St. Johns Water Management District, the Volusia County Environmental Task Force, and the Florida Audubon Society. He testified that all were opposed to the project for various reasons. Aside from the materials attached as exhibits to the application by Petitioner, which consisted of the Brevard Engineering Report, the Harris Report and plans and specifications and chemical test results taken by Department representatives from sample waters ,of the main canal the additional written materials before the Department prior to the, denial of the permit consisted of a letter from Mr. Kinloch, Pollution Control Coordinator of Brevard County, dated October 31, 1974; a letter from the Volusia County Environmental Task Force (a private group of about 25 professional persons who are concerned environmentalists) dated November 4, 1974; and a statement from Cherie Down a biologist with the Brevard County Health Department, dated September 6, 1973 (Exhibits 17,19 and 24). A letter from Gregory Camp, Environmental Control Officer of Volusia County, dated November 5, 1974, was not received in Respondent's Orlando Office until November 7, and therefore was rejected as an exhibit (Exhibit 18 for identification). In addition, Mr. Camp's conclusions were said by the Assistant County Attorney for Volusia County as not being authorized by the County Commission (testimony of Mr. Stuart). About a week before issuance of the denial letter, a meeting had been held at the Orlando Regional Office attended by its chief, Mr. Senkevich, Mr. Hunnicutt, Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Medley. The purpose of the meeting was to arrive at a decision concerning Petitioner's application. The procedure at the region was for the staff to decide the issue involved and then to assign an engineer in charge -- in this case, Mr. Hunnicutt -- to sign the decision letter to the applicant. No minutes of this meeting were made and the decision was a collective one by Mr. Hunnicutt, Mr. Hulbert, and Mr. Medley. They expressed their common opinion at the meeting that the permit application should be denied primarily because of considerations of water quality. Mr. Senkevich testified that he had the authority to overturn, the recommendation of the staff, but since his staff had unanimously concurred in the denial, he felt that their decision was correct. He is a civil engineer and primarily an administrator, but is not familiar with chemistry, biology, or hydrology. At the time, he erroneously believed that hydrological tests had been made by his staff as to the project and was of the incorrect, view that waters of one classification must flow into receiving waters of the same classification. He conceded at the hearing that he had only briefly studied the plan prior to the meeting and indicated that he had been concerned that the project area eventually would be developed with homes that would require septic tanks and cause a considerable problem with the degradation of water in the canals. He therefore was concerned that the canals would not maintain the requirements for Class III waters. He was unfamiliar with the aspect of danger to aquatic resources other than he felt that the main concern had been regarding trees in the area. He recognized that permits could be issued with specified conditions reasonably necessary for the prevention of pollution and that this could have been done, with respect to Petitioner's project. However, he felt that if this were done, it would usually be hard to enforce and so it was easier to insure that the project conformed to requirements at the time of construction rather than attaching conditions to the permit. He believed that if some of the project area which had not been sold could have been utilized for retention of some of the storm water runoff to provide for percolation or water storage, and if certain low areas could have been utilized for something other than lots, this possibly would have cured the objections of the staff. He did not feel that the changes which had been made by the Harris Report were sufficient to overcome the staff's objections to the project. He acknowledged that water tests in the main canal made by the Department since it had been built and prior to November, 1974, had shown an improvement in the canal water quality. He also acknowledged that none of the five criteria for control of storm water runoff set forth by the Department of Pollution Control in an April 1974 memorandum to regional offices (Exhibit 13) were violated by the proposed project (testimony of Hunnicutt, Senkevich). Mr. Medley, a biologist of the department and the project officer for review of Petitioner's application testified that he was mainly concerned because the project was designed in such a way as to eliminate wetland areas that treat and filter stormwater runoff prior to entry into the Hammock area and provide a place for wildlife to propagate. He felt that water and wildlife quality would diminish by reason of the accelerated flow of water caused by the canal system. This would take place by creating an unstable habitat in which there would be less of a variety of organisms by virtue of polluted waters entering the area. Such a condition would reduce the diversity and quality of species of organisms. He also felt that if water was diverted from one basin to another, it would have an adverse effect on biota because of the change in flow. He further believed that the failure of the applicant to address the question of future development of the project area was significant because once development occurs, canals get storm runoff from surrounding areas, become stagnant and high in nutrients. The state is then obliged to insure water quality and has been unable to do so in other projects of a like nature. He also was concerned because the reports attached to the application contained inaccuracies and it was difficult to determine what was reliable and what was unreliable information. His testimony showed that he, too, was under the erroneous impression that a member of the Department had assessed the hydrological aspects of the project when the Department was processing the application, and acknowledged that it would be difficult to determine if water would be degraded until the actual construction had been completed. However, he expressed his opinion that there is presently insufficient technology to create any canal system that would provide water quality to meet state regulations and it was his belief that wetlands should stay as they are in the interest of water quality. At the hearing, he was unable to describe the proposed canal systems for the project or the proposed vegetative filter area at the end of the canal (testimony of Medley) Mr. Hulbert, another Department bilogist, testified it was unrealistic to think that the project would not eventually be developed with hones. His concerns basically were similar to those of Medley concerning canal water quality in the future and as to inconsistencies in reports submitted by the applicant. He felt that the basic problem was the project grid design with canals following such design rather than natural drainage contours, but that modifications could have been made in the design to satisfy the Department's objections if additional buffer zones had been created along and adjacent to the proposed canals. However, he would not have recommended a permit under any circumstances because of the objections of Brevard County and Volusia County. It was his position that in such a situation the Department should deny the permit and then let the matter be determined by a Hearing Officer. He conceded that he had not examined data submitted by either county and that there was, in fact, no data submitted from Volusia County (testimony of Hulbert). Mr. Hunnicutt, the regional engineer, who is an environmental engineer, testified it was the concensus of all at the meeting that everything they had seen pointed to the fact that project drainage couldn't provide water quality sufficient to meet state requirements. His most objectionable aspect of the project was the drainage pattern and the fact that the canals had to be rather deep and did not follow natural contours, because deep canals below the water table would have standing water and no vegetation as would a more shallow drainage system. He felt that the areas of vegetative growth added by the Petitioner in the Harris Report were not large enough and would not be too effective in removing pollutants by the fast flow rate. He also was concerned about inconsistencies in the applicant's exhibits and saw no point in obtaining more test results on peripheral issues because the Petitioner was "locked in" to a deep canal concept. He, too, was under the mistaken notion that the project had been considered by a hydrologist of the department. Although he felt there were changes that could have been made which would warrant issuance of the permit, there was no point in telling the Petitioner about these because its representatives had said they couldn't make any more changes due to the existing grid system. He also agreed with Hulbert that if local agencies objected as they had in this case, the Department would deny the application but that when such objections were received, they were generally in accord with the existing view of the departmental staff. He testified that the question of the impact of the project on shellfish harvesting in the Indian River was not a serious consideration in his mind insofar as denial of the permit was concerned. He acknowledged that a permit could be issued with conditions, but the problem then became whether the applicant could maintain control effectively to enforce the conditions (testimony of Mr. Hunnicutt). A number of expert witnesses of various disciplines were called by the parties to, testify concerning the various ramifications of the proposed construction by the Petitioner. The following findings of fact are made with respect to specific material aspects of the case: The construction of homes on the tracts at Cape Atlantic Estates in any appreciable volume or any extensive use of the land in the next ten years is highly unlikely. This is due to time required for construction of the drainage facilities, and to the fact that most of the land contracts will not be paid out until the 1980's since owners of the tracts will not secure possession of their land until they have completed payment therefor. The land is not suitable for the installation of septic tanks because of the shallow soil and building permits will not be issued because of the dead-end roads in the project and the absence of paved roads ajoining the property (Exhibit 2, testimony of Trella, Maisel, Blue and Ford). It is impossible to state precisely what the impact of construction of the canal system, roads, ditches, retention ponds and control devices envisioned in the drainage plan will have on the water quality of the canals, Turnbull Hammock, Turnbull Creek, and the Indian River. Drainage of the land area by the construction will produce changes in the environment, but also will make the land accessible to owners, and to some extent may benefit the owners of nearby parcels by draining surface waters and lessening salt water intrusion. One owner of adjoining land objects to any changes in its present natural state (testimony of Blue, Hudson, Stock, Medley, Hunt, Kuperberg, White, De Wees, Fogel & Davenport) Draining and developing the project area will change the surface water flow characteristics by reducing the amount of time water is concentrated or retained in the natural area. This will undoubtedly increase the peak flows and volume of water generated from the area as compared with natural discharge. However, this increase will not exceed the capability of Turnbull Hammock to accept these flows, and increased quantities of waters in the Hammock probably would be beneficial by improving its soil conditions. The increase in peak flows and runoff volumes attributable to the project will not exceed 16 percent of the present ten year storm runoff into the Indian River. In terms of groundwater, recharge in the Cape Atlantic Area occurs only on the Atlantic Coastal ridge. A lowered water table, the result of improving drainage, will decrease the fresh water lead thereby reducing recharge. However, the water table will be lowered only one or two feet and if it is maintained with control structures at these levels as contemplated, improving drainage will not have a serious effect on the quality or quantity of the non-artesian water in the shallow aquifer in the area. The water from approximately 80 percent of the land area will flow into Turnbull Hammock and, in the southwest section of the project area, the water will be held in retention ponds and eventually released in a natural flow. Some water will go to the west toward the St. Johns River basin but it is impossible to tell how much flow this will be. The project will have no significant effect on Lake Harney and it is too far removed from the St. Johns River to have any great impact on its conditions. The drainage of the middle area of the project is ill-defined and water can flow either east or west, depending on how much rain has fallen. In the flat area to the north, water can run in both directions. Passage of water through the designed holding areas vegetation, and then reoxogenation in the canals and spreading systems to Turnbull Hammock will improve surface water quality at the site by creating motion. The roadside swales which bring water to the middle lateral canals will lower the ground water table several feet and this may well improve the water system because presently it is ponded and evaporates or filtrates into the atmosphere. Evidence of some salt water intrusion at the lower end of the Hammock area is evidenced by decayed cypress trees which are not salt water tolerant. Additional fresh water in the Hammock would improve this condition (testimony of McElroy, Blue, Clark, Hudson, McClouth; Exhibit 22). Although the waters in the main canal may not always have met all of the regulatory criteria for Class III waters under Department regulations, its quality has improved over the past several years, particularly with respect to the presence of dissolved oxygen. This is in keeping with the opinion of the experts who agreed that construction produces a temporary. adverse effect on water quality, but the waters soon stabilize and vegetation thereafter appears. When the canal system is completed and connected, a natural flow of water will occur to wash out minerals and other harmful substances, and increase the amounts of dissolved oxygen in the water. It is therefore considered unrealistic to use the test reports obtained from water samples in the present dead-end main canal because they cannot be considered representative of the quality of the water that will be present when the drainage system is in operation. Although it cannot be determined what the exact quality of the canal waters will be when in full operation, there are certain projected consequences which reasonably may be considered likely to occur. After construction of the drainage facilities, the flow of water Bill accelerate and this, in turn, can diminish the quality of animal and plant life to some degree in the Hammock area by reducing the diversity of species. The Hammock is normally anaerobic and nutrients are assimilated there to produce trees, low-lying vegetation, and animal life. Although an increased flow of fresh water will be beneficial to dominant trees, low-lying vegetation might suffer somewhat with a consequent impact on the organisms that feed upon them. However, this is a temporary condition during heavy rain and the degree of change in organisms depends on the frequency of flow and how long the water stays in the Hammock area. Added fresh water in the Hammock will reduce salt water intrusion with consequent beneficial effects. The Hammock can receive a flow of at least two times as much water as is now present during rainfall without adverse effects on the environment as long as urban development has not occurred to produce pollutants in the form of chemicals, tars, oils, and other wastes. Although several expert witnesses foresee eutrophication of the water in the main canal during stagnant periods of the dry season and then flushing of undesirable materials and nutrients accumulated by the eutrophic process into the Hammock during the wet season, the designed holding structures with shallow margins to encourage vegetation and the increased use of natural areas at the north outfall of the project area will filter and reduce substantially the amount of any undesirable material entering the Hammock. Canal systems with standing water are sometimes prone to eventually becoming clogged with aquatic plant life, such as water hyacinths and hydrilla. This, in turn, requires periodic destruction of the plants, usually by chemicals, in order to permit waterflow to continue. Though this possibly may be expected in the main, canal at some point in the future, the planned vegetative filtering system should control excessive entry of the chemical and other pollutants into the Hammock. During the period 1970-74, there was no growth of such plants in the dead-end main canal and no indication that it had become eutrophic (testimony of Blue, Morris, Clark, Hudson, Medley, Hulbert, Down, Stock, Ross). Although the area where Turnbull Creek enters the Indian River is designated as Class II waters, oysters or other shellfish are not present to any extent in the designated area. The designated shellfish harvesting area is in the Indian River south of the Brevard County line. The Indian River is moderately high in salinity and a wedge of this water goes into Turnbull Creek and then to the Hammock. The mixing zone of water is at the entrance of Turnbull which flows into the Indian River. Beyond this mixing zone where fresh water meets salt water, if shellfish exist, the limited amount of fresh water entering the river would have no significant effect upon their growth. Oysters need between ten to 30 parts per thousand salinity in the water for best growth and if the project water flowed into the Indian River the salinity would remain the same approximately 20 to 30 parts per thousand. In fact, a decrease in salinity in the water to some extent favors growth of oysters. However, increased rainfall and runoff can increase bacterial counts in shellfish and decrease the incidence of shellfish predators (testimony of Clark, Kinloch, Down). No significant diversion of waters from the Cape Atlantic Estates areas from natural drainage basins can be established other than some diversion in the eastern portion of the project area. Other than that the flow of ground water cannot be determined with accuracy and, in any event, the project would have little effect on surrounding lakes in the St. Johns River basin. Diversion would seldom occur except when there is a major storm because unless rainfall exceeds one or two inches an hour, it normally will be absorbed by the sandy soil (testimony of Blue, McClough, Hudson).
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection properly determined that Respondent City of Gulf Breeze was entitled to construct a concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, to widen the mouth of the bayou an additional 35 feet, and to dredge sections of the bayou to a depth of minus eight feet.
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1996, Gulf Breeze applied for a wetlands resource permit from DEP to allow the following: (a) dredging of the entrance channel to Gilmore Bayou in order to return the channel to its original width and depth; (b) construction of bulkheads on either side of the channel; and (c) construction of two jetties on the east side of the channel to slow the accretion of sediments in the channel. The proposed project is located in the waters of the state at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou where it opens into Pensacola Bay. The project is adjacent to and north of 406 Navy Cove Road, in the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida, Section 6, Township 35N, Range 29W. The Petitioner's home is located at 86 Highpoint Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Her residence is downstream from the project at the northeastern end of Gilmore Bayou. The channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou was originally dredged in the mid-1950s. Since that time, the channel has provided a navigable outlet to Pensacola Bay for use by property and boat owners along Gilmore Bayou. The channel has also provided for water circulation and tidal flushing within the Bayou. Maintenance dredging has been performed almost annually to keep the Gilmore Bayou channel open. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the need for the frequent maintenance dredging and to provide for better water circulation in the bayou. A wetlands resource permit to perform maintenance dredging has not been required in the past because that activity was exempt from the permitting process. On July 28, 1997, the Department issued Gulf Breeze a Notice of Intent to Issue Draft Permit Number 572874961 to construct one seventy (70) foot long concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, widen the mouth of Gilmore Bayou an additional thirty-five feet and dredge sections of the Bayou to a depth of minus eight feet. In issuing the Notice of Intent to Issue, the Department also considered Gulf Breeze's application for a five- year sovereign, submerged land easement for the location of the jetty. Gulf Breeze published the Notice of Intent to Issue in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with DEP requirements and Section 373.413(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-343.090(2)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition requesting that the permit be denied. Petitioner has a substantial interest in the permitted activity, as she owns property and resides on Gilmore Bayou. Petitioner's request that the permit be denied is primarily based on her opinion that water quality in Gilmore Bayou has deteriorated as a result of the original and continuous dredging of the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou. She is concerned that the permitted activity will result in further water quality degradation and result in a further movement of the spit of land which extends in front of her home out to Deadman's Island on the northern side of the Bayou. The ecosystem in Gilmore Bayou today is a healthy system which supports various marshes and fish. The ecosystem thrives despite water quality degradation resulting from development and urbanization along its shores. More specifically, septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, and stormwater discharge have caused water quality to degrade in the Bayou. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dredging of the channel over time has not caused the water quality to degrade. The permitted activity will have a positive effect on water quality in Gilmore Bayou, as it will enhance tidal flushing through the channel. The jetty, which is a part of the permitted activity, will slow the transport of sand into the channel, allowing for better flushing and reducing the need for maintenance dredging in the channel. Construction of the jetty is recommended and supported by the hyrdographic study of Kenneth L. Echternacht, Ph.D., P.E. Gulf Breeze obtained and submitted this study to DEP to assist in evaluating the project. The permitted activity will have no significant impact on the location of the spit of land extending from Petitioner's property to Deadman's Island. The shifting of the spit of land over the years has been caused by numerous factors which are identified in a 1993 study by Dr. James P. Morgan, Ph.D. These factors include development of the area, erosion of the surrounding bluffs, the location of the Pensacola Bay bridge, and storms and sand drift into channels to the east of the spit. Without this project or frequent maintenance dredging, the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou would fill with silt. Eventually, the silt would inhibit water circulation and result in further water quality degradation in the bayou. The permitted activity is not contrary to the public interest. Instead, it will benefit the public interest. The project will make it possible to maintain the Gilmore Bayou channel more efficiently. The project will allow for increased flushing of the bayou. The increased flushing will improve water quality in the bayou. The permitted activity will not have any adverse effect on the conservation of fish or wildlife, or any endangered species or their habitats. The permitted activity will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause any harmful erosion or shoaling. It will have a positive effect on navigation and water flow and act to prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will provide for permanent jetties and bulkheads at the entrance to Gilmore Bayou. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on historical or archeological resources on Deadman's Island or in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will have a positive impact on the recreational functions and use of the channel and Deadman's Island.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order determining that its Notice of Intent to Issue Permit, together with Permit No. 572874961, is final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Thies, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Patricia J. Moreland 86 Highpoint Drive Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Matt E. Dannheisser, Esquire 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ronald T. Hopwood is president of Last Resort Fish Camp Association, Inc. (hereafter "Association"), the owner of Big Pine Island located in Lake County, Florida. Big Pine Island consists of approximately 26 acres of land above the mean high watermark and 166 acres of submerged and transitional zone lands. The Association's property is more accurately described by the Department's exhibit III, Map C. Petitioner Milan M. Knor submitted to the Department a dredge and fill permit application, File No. 35-20062-4E, to dredge 7,350 plus-or-minus cubic yards of fill material waterward of the lien of ordinary high water and adjacent to the Petitioner's uplands (Department's Exhibit 12). It is proposed that the fill material or spoil be deposited on the landward side of a perimeter canal which presently exists along the southwest one-third of the island. When the project is complete, the canal will encircle the entire island, the fill material resulting therefrom will be deposited on the island side of the perimeter canal below a 59.5-foot elevation (Department's Exhibit III, Map A). During the dredging, turbidity curtains would be utilized. As part of the project, Petitioners propose to install two (2) 42-inch diameter culverts at the east and west ends of a causeway which connects Big Pine Island to the mainland (Department's Exhibit III, Map B). The purposes of the proposed project are to improve the water quality of the adjacent canals and wetlands, provide fire protection, reduce algae blooms, and stabilize bottom sediments (Petitioners' Exhibit A, Department's Exhibit 1). The elevation of 59.5 feet above mean sea level was established by the St. John's River Water Management District as the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Griffin. The desirable levels of Lake Griffin vary between 58.07 and 59.38 feet. A dredge and fill permit was issued fro this project by the St. John's River Water Management District. In its final order granting the permit, the Governing Board of the District found, inter alia, that the water quality of the district would not be significantly diminished by the channelization of the marsh, that the new culverts would increase the rate of flow and the flushing of the marsh by providing increased northerly access for the water flow, that the excavation would enhance navigability and flow through the interior canal, and that the channelization would promote fire protection. The Board believed that the installation of the culvers ". . . will provide a positive benefit to the marshlands by correcting the prior damming effect of the causeway " (Petitioner's Exhibit D). The permit was issued by the Governing Board over the recommendation of its staff to deny the permit (Department's Exhibit 16). On July 26, 1979, Mr. James Morgan, a filed inspector with the Department, conducted an on-site field inspection of the proposed project. Mr. Morgan complied an appraisal report, Department's Exhibit 11, which evaluated the feasibility of extending the existing 1,200-foot canal by approximately 3,000 feet. Mr. Morgan found that a portion of the area to be excavated, approximately 600 feet, was previously cleared and vegetated by arrowhead (Sagittaria, Sp.), paragrass (Panicum purpurascens), bloodroot (Lacnanthes caroliniana) and sawgrass. 1/ Standing water was present in portions of the previously cleared area. The remaining 2,400 feet were in a natural state, dominated by willows (Tudwigia peruviana), wax myrtles (Myrica ceriferia), arrowhead and sawgrass. Surface waters of the Oklawaha River and Lake Griffin were present in part of this area; however, at the time of the field evaluation, Lake Griffin's surface waters were depressed by approximately six (6) inches below its established ordinary high water elevation. Raising the lake's elevation to its high water elevation, 59.5 feet, would result in the entire project site being inundated with surface waters. Dip net samples yielded organisms which constitute the lowest levels of an aquatic food chain including amphipods, dragonfly naiads, diptera larvae and mosquito fish. Mr. Morgan's report concluded that ". . . [d]ue to the severity of the anticipated impact of the proposed canal construction, no environmentally acceptable modification is available other than to permit the system to function naturally. . . ." This conclusion was based on the following negative aspects of the project. The collecting and storing of organic materials in the canal which would reduce the dissolved oxygen level during biodegradation to lethal levels for fish and other aquatic organisms; The physical alteration and elimination of a natural wetland community; The increase in turbidity during excavation; and The placement of spoil below the controlled elevation of Lake Griffin which would reduce the lake and river flood storage capacity as well as the area capable of supporting healthy aquatic plant and animal life. It was recommended that the proposed culverts be installed and that one canal- front lot be utilized as a common lot for all property owners, thereby providing open water access to all property owners. Lake Griffin is presently in a highly eutrophic stated caused by large amounts of algae growth and weeds in the water column. Agricultural farming, municipal sewage treatment plants, and citrus processing plants are among the sources of nutrients causing the high algae growth. The construction of the causeway between the mainland and Big Pine Island in 1958 has prevented virtually any water from circulating between the marsh area and canal south of the causeway and the marsh area and canal north of the causeway. Due to this blockage of flow, lower dissolved oxygen levels and lower temperatures exist on the north side of the causeway. The south canal helps to maintain oxygen levels in the south marsh above concentrations considered critical to maintain aquatic life. The presence of the causeway has reduced the outflow of Lake Griffin by half, thereby increasing the residence time in the lake and promoting nutrient level buildup in the system. By increasing the water flow through the marsh surrounding the island, the quality of water entering the Oklawaha River from eutrophic Lake Griffin should be greatly improved. The marsh to the north of the causeway presently serves a vital purpose by removing nutrients and other deleterious substances from the water flowing from Lake Griffin into the Oklawaha River. The marsh community acts in a matter similar to the human kidney by filtering deleterious substances from the surface water. Biological productivity of the north marsh area is directly proportional to the amount of flow. This area presently experiences water movement caused by the control of water elevations in the Oklawaha chain of lakes by a series of control structures. This "backwater" effect, which is caused by movement in the Oklawaha, is not a sheet flow. If a sheet flow could be created, the marsh area directly north of the causeway, which is severely distressed, could be improved. A sheet flow northward could be created by the proper placement of adequate size culverts under the causeway and the completion of the canal. The canal could facilitate the flow of water northward by permitting water to overflow the canal bank on the north side. This would be caused by the effects of a hydraulic gradient which exists between the water level in the canal and the ordinary mean high water lever maintained by the St. John's River Water Management District. The hydraulic gradient would cause the canal to overflow its unobstructed north bank and travel northward through the marsh into the Oklawaha River. Water would be blocked by overflowing on the southeast side of the island because of an existing berm. In order to restore circulation, it would also be necessary to construct a series of culverts evenly distributed under the causeway. The two- culvert system proposed by the Petitioners would have a cosmetic effect and not significantly improve the natural water flow between the canals. If the flow through the highly distressed marsh to the north of the causeway could be improved through the proper placement of culverts and construction of a perimeter canal, the positive aspects of the project would outweigh the negative impact of the elimination of approximately six (6) acres of productive marshland. If steps are not taken to reverse the continuing degradation of the marsh directly north of the causeway, a large and valuable area of wetlands will be lost. Artificial conditions already exist due to the finger canal on the north side of the causeway and the causeway itself. The proposed filling of the island which is to occur below the 59.5- foot elevation will reduce the river's flood storage capacity and the area capable of supporting plan and animal life. The private benefit of placing the spoil from the dredging project on the island below the 59.5-foot elevation is outweighed by the negative impact associated with the elimination of a significant amount of low lying marshland. Adequate alternative means exist to provide fire protection to the residents of the island, and the filling of outlying marshes on the island is not necessary to accomplish this purpose. Petitioners have not been denied the use of their property either by the Department's denial of this permit or the granting of this permit with conditions. The existing lots are suitable for residential purposes, including that portion of the island below the 59.5-foot elevation which may be used for residential development by placing housing on pilings or poles.
Recommendation Therefore, it is recommended that the Department issue a permit to Petitioners to complete construction of a perimeter canal surrounding Big Pine Island subject to the following conditions: That the applicants install culverts or other similar structures of appropriate size to facilitate an adequate exchange of water between the canals on the north and south sides of the causeway. The number and size of the culverts or other structures will be determined by the Department. That the fill or spoil resulting from the dredging of the canal not be placed on Big Pine Island or any surrounding property at any elevation below 59.5 feet in elevation. That the applicants utilize equipment including, but not limited to, turbidity curtains to keep turbidity at a minimum during the dredging process. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August 1980.
The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with carrying out the mandates of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in the Florida Administrative Code promulgated thereunder. Respondent, MRT, is a real estate investment trust organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and authorized to do business in Florida. Royal Oaks Development Corporation is a Florida corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maryland Realty Trust. MRT is developing a parcel of land in Sections 33 and 34, T-2-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, and Section 4, T-1-N, R-1-E, Leon County, Florida, of which approximately 60 acres has already been developed as Royal Oaks Unit No. 1, a recorded subdivision pursuant to Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. The balance of the 120 acres is yet to be developed, and is the subject of this proceeding. The specific activity for which the application for dredge and fill permit was submitted consists of improvements to a drainage-way running from the south boundary of the MRT property to a pond designated in the application as "Pond II", together with a drawndown structure, referred to as "S-15". Following submittal of the permit application, DER notified MRT of the receipt of the application and advised that both a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and a license for stormwater discharge under Rule 17-4.248, Florida Administrative Code, would be required. Following review by the Department, during which MRT was notified that the application in its original form would not be received favorably, MRT, on August 21, 1980, revised its application and based on such revisions, the Department, on October 10, 1980, notified MRT of its intent to issue the permit and license sought. As indicated in the Intent to Issue, DER has asserted jurisdiction over the dredge and fill activities in question contending that they are contemplated to either be in or connected to "waters of the State". Specifically, the Department's Intent to Issue states as follows: The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Public Law 92-500 over dredge and fill activities conducted in or connected to certain waters of the State. The specific pond in question and the pond to which it is connected constitute waters of the State over which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction as defined in Section 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The project is not exempt from permitting procedures. Pond II is approximately four acres in size and consists of a western lobe of approximately one acre. Pond II is connected to the north to a waterbody known as Pond III/Foxcroft Lake". The vegetation in the south portion of Pond III is typical of fresh water vegetation that grows in submerged or wet areas. The vegetation in an existing well-defined channel between Pond II and the proposed location of structure S-15 is also comprised of water-tolerant species. Sagittaria subulata was observed in the channel in the area proposed for location of S-15. This plant species cannot tolerate dry conditions, indicating that water is present in the channel under most conditions. Further, no upland or pioneer species were observed in the channel, which also is indicative of the fact that the channel usually contains water. Water flows from Pond II to Pond III approximately 90 percent of the time. The base flow in the channel is approximately 2 cubic feet per second. Based on the storage capacity of Pond II, it is probable that flow occurs out of Pond II into Pond III under most conditions. Although 88.0 feet mean seal level is the design normal pond elevation expected after construction of S-15, the present observable elevation of Pond II appears to be between 89.94 and 90.09 mean sea level. Observations of the types of vegetation surrounding Pond II supports the conclusion that the existing normal level of Pond II is approximately 90.0 mean sea level. Pond III is a waterbody of approximately four acres in size and is a portion of the continuation of a larger 10 acre body of water referred to in this proceeding as "Foxcroft Lake". Pond III was the subject of a prior Department dredge and fill permit in which it was determined that Pond III constituted waters of the State subject to the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake is a lake owned by more than one person, of approximately 14 acres of surface area and a maximum average depth of approximately 3 feet. Pond III/Foxcroft Lake discharges to and is connected directly to a waterbody known as Long Pond. Long Pond in turn is eventually connected to and discharges into Lake Lafayette. Without any mechanisms designed to treat the pollutants expected to be generated by the proposed project, the development by MRT of its 120 acres of property could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the waters of Pond II, Pond III and Foxcroft Lake. Scientific studies demonstrate that potential pollutants generated from developments - single family, multi-family and commercial - have a significant impact on receiving waters if not treated before discharged. The project as presently designed will correct an existing source of pollution by removing sediment which is entering Pond II from the south from Shannon Forest Subdivision. This sediment has been deposited in the drainage- way between Shannon Forest and Pond II and is damaging and severely stressing biota in the drainage-way. This sediment has filled a portion of Pond II and could be expected to eventually discharge into Pond III/Foxcroft Lake. The pre-development rate of flow off the project site as it presently exists is approximately 600 cubic ft. per second. The project as proposed will reduce the rate of flow by 50 percent, to approximately 300 cfs. The project incorporates five mechanisms or abatement controls to treat contaminants customarily contained in stormwater: a grassed conveyance system; retention of natural vegetated areas; energy dissipators; sediment traps; and added storage. Grassed conveyance systems treat stormwater by the assimulation by plant communities of dissolved pollutants, such as nutrients, and the deposition of suspended pollutants that have absorbed to the sediment particles. Approximately 50 percent of the conveyance system in the Phase II development will be grassed swales and re-vegetated ditches. As many swales as possible will be used to convey the stormwater from the discharge at the street outfalls to the ponds. The main drainage ditch through the property will also be grassed. Natural vegetated areas to be left around the existing ponds will treat stormwater by assimilation and filtration in the same manner as the grassed swales and ditches. A one-acre parcel of wetlands is to be left between the southern most portion of the drainage-way and Pond II as described in MRT Exhibit No. 8 and in the revised permit application of August 21, 1980. The vegetation downstream of Pond II between the pond and control structure S-15 will also be left intact. Virtually all the vegetation bordering Pond II and Pond III will be left in place. Five energy dissipaters are to be constructed upstream of Pond II. These structures are designed to reduce the existing sedimentation and erosion problems by reducing the energy gradient and allowing the deposition of sediment, upon which absorbed pollutants have attached, into the accompanying sediment traps. Sediment traps are also to be constructed upstream of Pond II. Sediment traps treat stormwater by reducing the velocity gradient. Sediment and the pollutants absorbed to the sediment will drop out due to insufficient velocity. Storage will be increased in Pond II by the construction of control structure S-15 and by the planned excavation of Pond II. Added storage has a beneficial effect on water quality in that it allows additional sediment particles to settle out, allows additional time for the vegetation on the edge of the ponds to assimilate dissolved pollutants such as nutrients, and reduces the peak discharge velocity. The project is in the public interest in that it will alleviate an existing stormwater problem. In terms of probable efficiency, physical needs and costs, the project represents the best available treatment alternative. Based on existing technology, the system designed for this project is the most effective system within reasonable costs. The effectiveness of the stormwater treatment system depends on the presence of vegetation and will require less maintenance and attendant costs. There does not presently appear to be any local government effort to implement stormwater controls to address this problem or source. Petitioner submitted no evidence of such local government efforts. The system proposed by MRT will mitigate not only the effects of the discharge generated by the proposed development of the 120 acres of property owned by MRT, but will also mitigate the effects of an existing source of stormwater pollution. The system, as designed, is sufficient to afford the Department reasonable assurance that stormwater quality standards will not be violated. The parties stipulated that, should the requested permit and license be issued, they should incorporate the following additional condition: Roads and drainage facilities are to be owned and maintained by Leon County. All paving and drainage shall be done in accordance with the County's standards, details and specifications. In addition, MRT has instituted civil litigation against Leon County concerning the property involved in this proceeding. One of the allegations of MRT's complaint is that Leon County has, through the action amounting to inverse condemnation, acquired a drainage easement over the property for which MRT is now seeking the dredge and fill and stormwater permits. The plans submitted to DER by MRT with its application contain the following: When the construction plans for Phase III of the Royal Oaks development are prepared, these plans shall be submitted to the Department for evaluation for compliance with the original stormwater review.
