Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: On May 3, 1989, Cersosimo submitted an application for a Management of Surface Water Permit to the District. Subsequent to the submission of this application, the Polk County Board of County Commissioner (Commissioners) added an additional requirement to Cersosimo's Planned Unit Development (PUD) that there was to be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff in the event of a twenty- four hour one hundred (100) year storm event, i.e. following completion of this project (post-development) it will handle the same outflow or flow of storm water for the twenty four-hour one hundred-year storm event as in a pre- development situation. Based on the Commissioners' requirement, the design of the PUD was amended to provide for the required storage capabilities. On July 26, 1990, Cersosimo submitted to the District, its amended application, Management of Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01 incorporating the changes necessitated due to the Commissioners' additional requirement as to storm water runoff. On August 24, 1990, Ramon E. Monreal, P.E., of the Polk County Engineering Division, noted in a letter of that same date referring to Cersosimo's modification of Retention Pond No. 300 for the project in question that "this revision appears to meet the PUD condition by the Board of County Commissioners for drainage and compliance with the Surface Water Management Ordinance". The application of July 26, 1990, amends the original application by superceding and replacing that application. In connection with the application for permit, soil borings were taken at the site location for the retention ponds in order to establish the elevation of the seasonal high water level (SHWL) for that site. The borings indicated an elevation for the SHWL of 110 feet to 112 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The District conservationally established the elevation for the SHWL of this particular site as 112 feet AMSL. The floor elevation of the lowest retention pond was established at 114.00 feet AMSL. The elevation of the surface of Lake Mabel for the ten year flood warning Level is 114.50 feet AMSL as established by Rule 40D-8.624(1)(z), Florida Administrative Code. District policy requires the floor elevation of a dry retention pond to be a minimum of one foot above the established elevation of the SHWL of that particular site. Even though the surface elevation of Lake Mabel for the Ten Year Flood Warning Level was established as 114.50 feet AMSL, there is insufficient evidence to show that there was lateral migration of water from the lake's edge to the site of the soil borings such that it was evidenced by a demarcation in the soil profile. To the contrary, the evidence shows that there were demarcations in the soil profile to establish an elevation for the SHWL for this site of 110 feet to 112 feet AMSL. The designed weir crest in the lower retention pond, Pond No. 300, has an approximate elevation of 118.50 feet AMSL which prevents water from coming over the top into the pond in the event Lake Mabel reaches the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL. The distance from the present water edge of Lake Mabel to the bottom of Pond No. 300 would be approximately 600 feet, laterally and if the lake reached the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL, the lake's water edge would be approximately 100 feet laterally from the bottom of Pond No. 300. There was sufficient evidence to show that even if the surface elevation of Lake Mabel reached the ten year flood level warning of 114.50 feet AMSL and the SHWL (ground water level) reached 112 feet AMSL, the retention ponds as presently proposed with a floor elevation of 114.00 feet AMSL would still percolate sufficiently, even though the percolation may be diminished from what it would be under present conditions, so that there would still be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff. Cersosimo can give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system as presently proposed will not diminish the capabilities of Lake Mabel to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. Among others, the following specific conditions in pertinent part will be placed on the permit, if granted: . . . The applicant shall visually monitor the ponds on a monthly basis to ensure that the ponds are dry within 36 hours from the end of the last rainfall event. Should the ponds fail to percolate the required water quality volume per District criteria, a permit modification shall be required. . . .
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the application for Management Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01, as proposed by the District. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4175 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Cersosimo 1. - 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-7, respectively. 8. - 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 8 and 14, respectively. 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 12.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 11, respectively. Respondent District adopted Respondent Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact, therefore the same rulings would apply as was applied to Respondent's Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact above. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire Susan Dietrich, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Gary L. Gandy Omega Farm Post Office Box Omega Waverly, Florida 33887 Beach A. Brooks, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 7608 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: whether the challengers have standing; and (2) whether Proposed Rule 40E-8.221(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The District is a government entity existing and operating pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a multi- purpose water management district. The District has the power and duty to adopt MFLs consistent with the provisions of part I of chapter 373. Sanibel is a barrier island sanctuary in Lee County and a duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. Sanibel is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. Sanibel is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. That is why tourists come from around the globe to visit Sanibel, and why Sanibel's residents move and remain there. Sanibel actively participated in the rulemaking process for the Proposed Rule from its inception. Sanibel submitted two technical comment letters to the District during the development of the Proposed Rule. Sanibel's natural resources director, James Evans, attended numerous public and technical meetings associated with the development of the Proposed Rule, speaking on the record at each of the public meetings prior to the adoption hearing by the District's governing board. The Town, located on Estero Island in Lee County, is also a barrier island community and duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. The Town is situated just south of the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River and on the southeastern edge of the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. The Town is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. Cape Coral is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and is the largest city between Tampa and Miami, with a population in excess of 150,000. Cape Coral is bordered on the south by the Caloosahatchee River and has over 400 miles of navigable canals and waterways, all of which are within the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. In addition, Cape Coral has an assigned load reduction allocation under the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for the Caloosahatchee River Estuary (CRE) due to it being designated as impaired for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Maintaining sufficient flow in the Caloosahatchee River would have a direct impact on Cape Coral's ability to meet its assigned load reduction allocation. In addition to living on or near the water, a substantial number of the residents of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town engage in water-based recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, bird watching, and nature observation in and around the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. Fort Myers is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and has a population of approximately 80,000. Fort Myers is bordered by the CRE throughout its entire jurisdictional boundary. Fort Myers owns and maintains a yacht basin (Ft. Myers Yacht Basin), which includes a mooring field and an anchorage field in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers presented testimony that commercial crabbing and recreational fishing have declined and that it has suffered economic harm due to water quality issues. Fort Myers owns the submerged land in the Caloosahatchee River from Marker 39 to Marker 58, and islands in the river. One such island will be used as a park for recreational activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and hiking for visitors to enjoy the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers also owns and operates piers and a public boat ramp within the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers' dock master has observed declines in seagrasses in the Caloosahatchee River during his 19-year career working at the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin. Fort Myers has adopted a Harbor Management Plan for the management of its mooring and anchorage fields in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers has also been assigned a load reduction allocation under the BMAP for the CRE, and is responsible for a certain amount of pollution reduction over time. Bonita Springs is a municipality of more than 50,000 in Lee County. The borders of Bonita Springs include portions of Estero Bay, which, along with San Carlos Bay and the Caloosahatchee River, is part of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Bonita Springs includes wildlife refuges, such as the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Lovers Key State Park and Recreation Area. While Bonita Springs' strategic priorities include environmental protection and water quality, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Bonita Springs participates in Estero Bay Management and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP). Bonita Springs provides financial assistance to the Caloosahatchee Citizen Sea Grass Gardening Project. Concerns regarding harm to the CRE and tape grasses are shared by a significant number of residents in Bonita Springs and Estero, including injury to the quality of life and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, and kayaking in the waterways. Estero is a municipality of more than 30,000 in Lee County. Estero borders the eastern portion of Estero Bay. Estero includes wildlife refuges, such as Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Koreshan State Park. While Estero has environmental policies, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Estero makes financial contributions to CHNEP. Estero is concerned that the Proposed Rule will affect its water quality, which could affect its residents' quality of life. Estero believes it could be harmed by poor water quality because its residents are portable retirees who can move away, or tourists who can choose not to visit. Captiva Island is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. CCP is a Florida not-for-profit corporation representing property owners, businesses, and the community of Captiva Island. Captiva Island is part of unincorporated Lee County and is located north of Sanibel. CCP has 200 financial contributors comprised of property owners, businesses, and residents on Captiva Island. CCP's mission includes protection of clean off-shore water, diverse and healthy marine life, and robust native vegetation along with the protection of mangrove fringe and water quality. CCP works with Lee County on provisions of the County's comprehensive plan, which include the quality of adjacent waters. CCP relied on the expertise of James Evans, the director of natural resources for Sanibel, and on the Sanibel- Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). CCP was advised that the Proposed Rule was not sufficient to protect the environment and Vallisneria americana (Vallisneria) or tape grass during the dry season. Caloosahatchee River and Estuary The watershed of the Caloosahatchee River covers approximately 861,058 acres. The watershed consists of four sub-watersheds, three of which are upstream of the S-79 structure. The Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed (estuarine system) is downstream of the S-79 structure. The S-79 structure captures all the upstream discharges of fresh water that go into the estuarine system through the S-79 structure. Major tidal tributaries of the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin are the Orange River and Telegraph Creek, which drain into the upper estuary downstream of the S-79 structure. Fresh water inflows from these and other tributaries also contribute fresh water into the estuarine system. The Caloosahatchee River was originally a natural watercourse running from its origin at Lake Flirt to San Carlos Bay. It is currently defined as the "surface waters that flow through the S-79 structure, combined with tributary contributions below S-79 that collectively flow southwest to San Carlos Bay." Fla. Admin. Code. R. 40E-8.021(2). Man-made alterations to the Caloosahatchee River began as early as 1884, but major alterations began in the 1930s with the authorization and construction of the C-43 Canal. The C-43 Canal runs 41.6 miles from Lake Okeechobee at Moore Haven, i.e., from the S-77 structure, to Olga, i.e., the S-79 structure. The C-43 Canal serves as a conveyance feature to drain water from the three sub-watersheds located upstream of the S-79 structure and convey regulatory discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. In 1957, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) prepared a report focused on drainage, flood control, and navigation needs of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, and one recommendation was construction of the S-79 structure. The key objectives of the S-79 structure were to eliminate undesirable salinity in the lower Caloosahatchee River, prevent the rapid depletion of water supplies, and raise the prevailing dry weather water table levels. The S-79 structure was constructed in 1965. It is a lock and dam structure that is also known as the Franklin Lock and Dam. The S-79 structure captures all upstream fresh water discharges that go into the CRE. The S-79 structure demarcates the head of the CRE, which extends 26 miles downstream to Shell Point, where it empties into San Carlos Bay in the southern portion of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Most of this surface water flow takes a southerly route, flowing to the Gulf of Mexico under the Sanibel Causeway that crosses San Carlos Bay. When fresh water inflows are high, tidal action pushes some of this water back up into Matlacha Pass and Pine Island Sound. Additionally, some water exits to the south and flows into Estero Bay through Matanzas Pass. Salinity exhibits a strong gradient in the CRE. Changes in the watershed upstream of the S-79 structure have profoundly influenced the delivery of fresh water to the CRE. Runoff is now more variable with higher wet season flows and lower dry season discharges. Large volumes of fresh water during the wet season can flush salt water from the tidally-influenced sections of the water body, resulting in low salinity conditions throughout most of the CRE. In contrast, fresh water inflow at the S-79 structure can stop entirely during the dry season, especially during significant drought events. This results in saline intrusion that can extend upstream to the S-79 structure. Fluctuations of this magnitude at the head and mouth of the system cause mortality of organisms at both ends of the salinity gradient. Downstream of the S-79 structure, the CRE was significantly altered by multiple dredging activities, including the removal of extensive shoals and oyster bars. Seven automobile bridges, a railroad trestle, and the Sanibel Causeway were built between the 1880s and 1960s. A large canal network was built along the northern shoreline of the CRE in Cape Coral. To provide navigational access from the canal network to deeper water, multiple access channels were dredged within the CRE. Alterations to the delivery of fresh water combined with structural changes to the tidally-influenced sections of the water body have had lasting ecological consequences. These include the loss of extensive shoals and oyster bars, loss of a flourishing bay scallop fishery, and significant decline in seagrass cover in deeper areas. MFLs An MFL is the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. The District's rules define significant harm as the "temporary loss of water resource functions, which results from a change in surface or ground water hydrology, that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The rule further specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. Id. MFLs are calculated using the best information available. The regulatory agency is required to consider changes and structural alterations to watersheds, and the constraints such changes or alterations placed on the hydrology of an affected watershed. Certain waterbodies may not serve their historical hydrologic functions and recovery of these waterbodies to historical hydrologic conditions may not be economically or technically feasible. Accordingly, the regulatory agencies may determine that setting an MFL for such a water body based on its historical condition is not appropriate. Caloosahatchee MFL For the CRE, MFL criteria were designed to protect the estuary from significant harm due to insufficient fresh water inflows and were not guidelines for restoration of estuarine functions to conditions that existed in the past. The MFL criteria consider three aspects of the flow in terms of potential significant harm to the estuary: (1) the magnitude of the flow or the volume of fresh water entering the estuary; (2) the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm; and (3) the return frequency, or the number of times the MFL can be violated over a number of years before it results in significant harm, recognizing that natural climatic variability will be expected to cause fresh water inflows to fall below recommended levels at some natural frequency. The CRE MFL initially adopted in 2001 was primarily based on the salinity tolerance of one valued ecosystem component (VEC). The VEC was Vallisneria americana or tape grass, a fresh water aquatic plant that tolerates low levels of salinity. A major assumption of this approach was that flow and salinity conditions that protect Vallisneria would also protect other key organisms in the estuary. The 2001 CRE MFL was based on a regression model for estimating the relationship between surface salinity measured at the Ft. Myers monitoring station located in the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin and discharge at the S-79 structure. Although the District monitors surface and bottom salinity at multiple stations in the CRE, the Ft. Myers monitoring station is located centrally in the CRE and at the historical downstream extent of the Vallisneria habitat. The Ft. Myers monitoring station also has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. The fixed data sondes that monitor surface and bottom salinity are located at 20 percent and 80 percent of total river depth measured at mean low water. The data sondes continuously measure temperature and specific conductivity and, depending on the manufacturer, contains programs that calculate salinity. Those calculations are based on standards recognized and used worldwide by estuarine, marine, and oceanographic scientists.1/ The regression model only implicitly included inflows from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed downstream of the S-79 structure. To address this, during the 2003 re-evaluation, a linear reservoir model of Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin inflows was developed. The regression model results showed that a total inflow from S-79 plus the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin of about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) was required to produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station. Thus, the 2001 CRE MFL of 300 cfs measured at the S-79 structure would produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station only with additional inflow from the downstream Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed. However, that additional inflow estimate was highly uncertain. The conclusion was that actual flow measurements over a period of time were needed in order to perform more robust calibrations for the new models that were being developed. The Re-evaluation The District's re-evaluation effort began in 2010 after the Conservancy of Southwest Florida filed a petition requesting review of the Caloosahatchee MFL. At the time, the governing board denied the petition but directed staff to undertake additional research and monitoring to ensure a future revision would be supported by the best information available. The first step was to review the September 2000 Final Peer Review Report (PRR) for the initial adoption. The 2000 PRR identified several items the District should consider, including a hydrodynamic salinity model, a numerical population model for Vallisneria, quantification of habitat value for Vallisneria, and documentation of the effects of minimum flows on downstream estuarine biota. The 2000 PRR documented concerns that the current MFL was based solely on the salinity tolerance of Vallisneria and recommended using multiple indicator species. To address those recommendations, the District conducted studies to evaluate multiple ecological indicators, such as zooplankton, aquatic vegetation, oysters, benthic communities, and blue crabs, in the Caloosahatchee from the S-79 structure to beyond Shell Point. In addition, the District collected flow data from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed for at least five years to develop watershed, flow, and hydrodynamic models that could properly simulate inflows and salinity responses. When the initial research was complete in 2016, the District published the Draft Science Document containing 11 component studies. In September 2016, the District held a two- day Science Symposium to present the 11 component studies and gather public comment. In response to public comment, the District performed additional evaluations, modeling, and updated the component studies to produce a Draft Technical Document. A Peer Review Panel reviewed the Draft Technical Document, which included the Draft Science Document. The Peer Review Panel has over 150 years of combined relevant scientific experience. The Peer Review Panel toured the CRE by air and water. The District also held a Peer Review Session to engage the public and obtain feedback. The Peer Review Panel's 2017 report (PRP report) stated that the District had "crafted a well-executed and well- documented set of field and laboratory studies and modeling effort" to re-evaluate the CRE MFL. The PRP report supported the 11 component studies, the modeling, the evaluations, and the initial proposed rule language. The Final Technical Document published in January 2018 incorporated five different models and additional science, examining the entire watershed and the criteria itself. The Final Science Document was Appendix A to the Final Technical Document and contained the scientific research and analysis that was done for the 11 component studies, the modeling, and the additional scientific analyses performed in response to public and stakeholder input. The District initiated rule development in December 2017. Rule development workshops were held in February and June 2018 and a stakeholder technical meeting was held in May 2018. The District validated the comments after each workshop and meeting, and revised the proposed rule language. The District published its Notice of Proposed Rule on July 23, 2018.2/ At its September 13, 2018, meeting, the District's governing board held a public hearing on the Proposed Rule. The mayors of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town publicly commented at the hearing. After considering public comments, the governing board adopted the Proposed Rule. The District documented and responded to each public comment, memorializing the information in the Final Technical Document. Later, after the rule workshops and May 2018 technical meeting, the District prepared and presented all of the updated information, including public comment, at the September 2018 adoption hearing. Thus, the District's re-evaluation process was open and transparent. The Re-evaluated Caloosahatchee MFL The science supporting the re-evaluation involved a comprehensive assessment of the effects of diminished dry season fresh water inflows on the CRE. The dry season was chosen for two reasons. First, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats. Second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The 11 component studies targeted specific concerns regarding physical and ecological characteristics. Together they offered a holistic understanding of the negative effects of diminished fresh water inflow on estuarine ecology. The re-evaluated MFL criteria were developed using a resource-based approach. The approach combined the VEC approach and the habitat overlap concept. The habitat overlap approach is based on the idea that estuaries serve a nursery function and salinity determines the distribution of species within an estuary, including distribution during different life stages. The combined approach studied the minimum flow requirements of the various indicator species in terms of magnitude, duration, and return frequency, resulting in the following three aspects of the flow: (1) for magnitude, a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure; for duration, an MFL exceedance occurs during a 365-day period when the 30-day moving average flow at S-79 is below 400 cfs and the 30-day moving average salinity exceeds 10 at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station; and (3) for return frequency, an MFL violation occurs when an exceedance occurs more than once in a five-year period. The magnitude component is based on the salinity requirements of Vallisneria, along with results from the 11 studies modeling salinity and considering the salinity requirements of the other VECs. The duration component is based mainly on the estimates of rate of loss of Vallisneria shoots when salinity rises above 10 and the recovery rate of the shoots when salinities fall back below 10. Return frequency was determined based on long-term rainfall records rather than flow measurements from the S-79 structure, which the PRP report felt was well justified. In addition to the component studies, the re-evaluated MFL criteria and existing recovery strategy were evaluated using a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating long-term fresh water inflow to the CRE associated with varying management options, the resulting salinity in the CRE, and the ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were utilized. Three models simulated fresh water inflows to the CRE: two for S-79 flows; and one for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed flows. The other two models were a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model and a Vallisneria model. Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed has a number of tributaries that drain fresh water into the CRE. The flow at several of the tributaries was monitored for a five-year period. The measured flow was used to calibrate a watershed model and conduct a long-term simulation. The results showed an average fresh water inflow for all seasons of approximately 430 cfs. The average fresh water inflow during the dry season was 245 cfs while the wet season average fresh water inflow was 613 cfs. Fresh water inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed was approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE while 80 percent was released through the S-79 structure. Petitioners' and Intervenors' Objections 400 cfs Is Too Low Sanibel relied on a memorandum prepared by Dr. David Tomasko (Tomasko report) concerning his company's review of the January 2018 Final Technical Document supporting the Proposed Rule. The Tomasko report, dated October 23, 2018, was in the form of a "technical memorandum" outlining "preliminary findings." The Tomasko report was admitted as a joint exhibit; however, Dr. Tomasko did not testify at the final hearing. The Tomasko report is hearsay that was not used to supplement or explain competent direct evidence. Although hearsay is admissible in this proceeding, it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of fact.3/ See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The District's expert witnesses, who testified at the final hearing, explained that ten of the 11 component studies identified average indicator flows at S-79 ranging from 237 to 545 cfs with standard deviations ranging from plus or minus 57 to plus or minus 774 cfs.4/ The District's experts performed three different evaluations of those flow results. They identified the mean of all the means, calculated the median of the means, and performed a probability density function. The flow results for each of the three evaluations were 381 cfs, 400 cfs, and 365 cfs, with standard deviations that ranged from plus or minus 277 cfs to plus or minus 706 cfs. The District's experts testified that the three flow results are indistinguishable from a statistical point of view. The District chose 400 cfs because it was the highest flow result, and, therefore, the most protective of the three. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to present evidence that showed any deficiencies in the District's component studies, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, or statistical modeling, or analysis of compliance data. The preponderance of the evidence established that the District used the best available science to calculate the MFL criteria. The District did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it chose 400 cfs as the magnitude component of the MFL criteria. Inclusion of Salinity in the MFL Criteria The preponderance of the evidence also established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. It supports essential ecological goods and services, is sensitive to salinity fluctuations at the ecosystem scale, and has value to a variety of stakeholders. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. A combination of field monitoring, mesocosm studies, and modeling results allowed the application of Vallisneria responses as a platform to quantify the effects of high salinity duration in the upper CRE. Component Study Eight reviewed the development and initial application of a simulation model for Vallisneria in the CRE. The Vallisneria model was used to evaluate the salinity conditions that led to net annual mortality, or, in other words, the duration of high salinity exposure that led to decreased Vallisneria shoots versus the duration of low salinity conditions required for recovery. Component Study Seven included an analysis of the relationship between the number of consecutive days where salinity at the Ft. Myers monitoring station was greater than 10 and the percentage of initial Vallisneria shoots remaining at the end of each high salinity period. To further evaluate the duration element associated with the MFL criteria, the field monitoring data contained in Component Study Seven was evaluated with the mesocosm and modeling results. All three sources were analyzed similarly to derive a combined curve showing high salinity exposure duration that is significantly harmful to Vallisneria. The model also provided information that was used to quantify the duration of low salinity conditions required for Vallisneria to recover a relative fraction of shoots after high salinity exposure. Merging the exposure and recovery evaluations facilitated a determination of the unfavorable salinity duration that could significantly harm Vallisneria habitat. With significant harm defined as the environmental harm from which two years are required to recover, the determination was that Vallisneria should experience no more than 55 consecutive days of salinity greater than 10. However, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the percentage loss of Vallisneria habitat after 55 days of high salinity exposure. In response, the District conducted further analysis of modeling results and revised the duration component to accept the stakeholder recommendation, now expressed in the Proposed Rule, of a 30-day moving average salinity greater than 10. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that by expressing the MFL as a "flow plus salinity component" the Proposed Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. However, the duration component is part of compliance and represents the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm to the indicator species Vallisneria. The MFL in the Proposed Rule is a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure. Flow is both measured and operationally controlled at the S-79 structure. However, as previously found, there are other sources of fresh water entering the CRE downstream of the S-79 structure. The District does not control and cannot control these downstream sources, which modeling reveals contribute approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE. By including salinity, the District can account for fresh water inflows coming from the tidal basin when there are low or no flows at S-79 since the significant harm threshold in the CRE is directly related to salinity tolerance of the indicator species Vallisneria. The District's experts also testified that salinity can be used as a flow component because it is not affected by chemical or biological processes and is an indicator of how much fresh water is entering the system.5/ Salinity is included in the duration component of the MFL criteria and is an exceedance criterion because the science established that the salinity gradient is crucial to the overall health of the CRE. Including salinity in the duration component of the MFL criteria achieves the purpose of the statutory mandate to set MFLs that are designed to avoid significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. No Unit of Measurement for Salinity The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not contain any units for salinity. The UNESCO calculation is the standard equation used by the estuarine and marine science community to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity. The District's experts testified that the UNESCO calculation reports salinity as a ratio, which is a dimensionless number and has no units. The District uses the UNESCO calculation and performs the conversion in a spreadsheet that it maintains. In some instances, certain brands of data sondes are programmed to perform the calculation and provide the salinity number. The preponderance of the evidence established that use of the practical salinity unit (PSU) is not technically correct. PSU is a misnomer, a pseudo-unit equivalent to a unitless salinity number. The Petitioners' and Intervenors' expert witness, Dr. Anthony Janicki, conceded there is no difference between reporting salinity as unitless or as PSU. And although technically incorrect, he suggested that placing the word "practical" or putting "PSU" in the Proposed Rule would reduce confusion and vagueness. However, since the preponderance of the evidence established that use of PSU is not technically correct, the use of a pseudo-unit would actually cause confusion instead of reduce confusion. The Petitioners and Intervenors also argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not state that the method of measuring salinity is specific conductivity, or that the equation used to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity is the standard developed by UNESCO. The Petitioners and Intervenors essentially argued that members of the public and those who may be regulated by the Proposed Rule are left to guess about the method or methods used to measure salinity. Because the Proposed Rule identifies and locates by latitude and longitude coordinates the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station as the location where salinity would be measured for compliance, the Proposed Rule language is not vague. The Proposed Rule is not vague because it does not describe the data sondes, what parameters are measured by the data sondes, and how those parameters are converted to a salinity number. Salinity Monitoring Location and Mean Low Water The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague for failing to define the phrase "20% of the total river depth at mean low water," and is arbitrary or capricious for failing to include more than one salinity monitoring station. Total river depth or the water column depth is a standardized measurement that is made from the surface down to the bottom of the river bed. Mean low water is commonly understood in the oceanographic and coastal sciences community as the average of all low tides over the time period defined as the national tidal datum epic. The District's expert witness, Dr. Cassondra Armstrong, testified that mean low water can be determined by using two documents prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), i.e., the NOAA tide charts and glossary. The District's expert witnesses testified that "20% of the total river depth at mean low water" is the location of the data sonde at the Ft. Myers monitoring station that measures surface salinity. This is also the depth at which Vallisneria is located in the CRE. Since, the Proposed Rule language simply identifies the location of the existing data sonde at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station, the language is not vague. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station has two salinity data sondes, the one at 20 percent of the total river depth and the other at 80 percent. The data sonde at 20 percent of the total river depth was identified in the Proposed Rule for the following reasons. First, this is the depth where Vallisneria grows and is representative of the salinity exposure for Vallisneria. Second, it guarantees the data sonde is always submerged and able to record data. Third, it has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. As previously found, Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. Because the preponderance of the evidence established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE, the choice of the Ft. Myers monitoring station is not arbitrary or capricious. Water Resource Functions vs. Environmental Values The District's MFL rule specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The Final Technical Document identified the relevant water resource functions of the CRE as fish and wildlife habitats, estuarine resources, water supply, recreation, navigation, and flood control. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the environmental values listed in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-40, also known as the Water Resource Implementation Rule, were not adequately addressed in the Final Technical Document. A proposed rule challenge is not the proper forum to determine whether a proposed rule is consistent with the Water Resource Implementation Rule. Such a determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection under section 373.114(2), Florida Statutes. Consistency of the District's Proposed Rule with the Water Resource Implementation Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection is not a basis in this proceeding for a finding that the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Other Issues The Petitioners and Intervenors raised other issues during the hearing, although not specifically argued in their proposed final order. Since those issues were identified as disputed issues in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, they are addressed below. 1. Elimination of Single-day Exceedance Criterion During the rulemaking process, Sanibel and SCCF sent the District a letter requesting justification for eliminating the single-day exceedance salinity criterion in the current rule. The District staff evaluated the available Caloosahatchee River MFL compliance record, dating back to when the MFL was adopted in September 2001. The District maintains a historical record of MFL monitoring data and reviewed it to determine if the single-day exceedance salinity criterion was exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. The compliance record showed five exceedance events of the single-day salinity criterion have occurred. However, the compliance record also showed that the 30- day moving average salinity criterion had already been exceeded before the five events occurred. In other words, the single-day criterion was never exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. Based on this evaluation, the District eliminated the single-day exceedance salinity criterion because it did not provide any additional resource protection. The District's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. 2. Not Using the Latest Model Evaluation of recommended MFL criteria and a recovery strategy for the CRE were greatly aided by integration of a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating (1) long-term fresh water inflow associated with varying management options, (2) the resulting salinity in the estuary, and (3) ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were specifically utilized, including three models for simulations of fresh water inflows to the CRE, a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model, and a Vallisneria model. The three models simulating fresh water inflows included (1) the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) to simulate fresh water discharges at S-79, which includes regional operations of Lake Okeechobee and incorporates Caloosahatchee River irrigation demands; (2) the C-43 Reservoir Model, which uses the SFWMM-simulated daily S-79 flow as input and simulates the management benefit of the C-43 Reservoir; and (3) the Watershed (WaSh) Model to simulate tidal tributary inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed. The Caloosahatchee Hydrodynamic/Salinity Model was based on the Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Three-dimensional Model (CH3D) modeling framework with the functionality of simulating the spatial salinity structure across the entire estuary. The Vallisneria Model took the CH3D modeled salinity as input to simulate Vallisneria growth at critical locations in the estuary. The District did review the more recent Environmental Fluid Dynamic Code (EFDC) model developed for the Caloosahatchee Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and being used by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District's expert witness, Dr. Detong Sun, testified that until 2014, the hydrodynamic part of the EFDC model was not working well. He testified that in 2016, the District still had concerns and suggested the use of the District's continuous monitoring data from seven locations across the CRE rather than grab samples for model calibration. Dr. Sun's opinion was that the EFDC model has improved in recent years, but was still behind the CH3D model in terms of performance. The District's expert witness, Dr. Amanda Kahn, testified that the water quality component of the EFDC model was not appropriate for this re-evaluation because the MFL is about water quantity, not water quality. The water quality component of the EFDC model addresses nutrient loadings, not minimum flows. Dr. Kahn also testified that in setting MFL criteria for the CRE, salinity was not a water quality component. Salinity was used as a water quantity component because it does not change with biological processes and can be a measure of how much fresh water is coming into the system. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the District's decision not to use the EFDC model was not arbitrary or capricious. 3. Seasonality The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the District is required to set an MFL that varies by season. For the CRE, the District set MFL criteria that protect the system from low flow that would occur in either the wet or dry season. As previously found, the re-evaluation studies focused on the dry season for two reasons: first, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats; and second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The MFL statute states that "when appropriate, [MFLs] may be calculated to reflect seasonal variations." § 373.042(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The preponderance of the evidence showed that for the CRE, it was not necessary to set an MFL that varied by season. Improper Purpose The Petitioners, Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Intervenors, Fort Myers, Estero, Bonita Springs, and CCP, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Intervenors did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc., to modify and expand an existing marina facility associated with an existing adjacent hotel, based on reasonable assurances from the applicant that the proposed project satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the review of environmental resource permit applications and for the regulation of water pollution in specified waters of the state. SBH is a Florida corporation and the general partner of Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Limited (Hotel Associates), the owner of the property in question. The complex at issue is composed of the Hyatt Hotel and certain submerged land underlying the proposed project. SBH is the authorized agency for Hotel Associates for the purpose of obtaining the permit in issue. Petitioners are associations of condominium owners whose properties lie adjacent and to the west of the site in question. The parties stipulated that all Petitioners had standing in this proceeding. The site at issue, owned by Hotel Associates, consists of a portion of the submerged bottoms within a sea- walled, rectangular-shaped, man-made basin which runs in a north-south direction west of U.S. Highway 41 in Sarasota. It is connected by a narrowed channel to Sarasota Bay at its southern end. Hotel Associates owns approximately the northern one-third of the basin, and Petitioners own approximately the western one-half of the southern two-thirds of the basin. Petitioners' property is not covered in the proposed permit. The remaining portion of the basin, comprised of the eastern one-half of the southern two-thirds, is owned by an entity which is not a party to this action, and that portion of the bottom also is not covered by the proposed permit. However, in order for boat traffic to reach the property in issue, the boats must traverse the southern two- thirds of the basin. Both Petitioners and the unconnected third owner maintain existing finger piers within their respective portions of the basin outside the portion in issue. The basin in which the marina in question is located is classified as a Class III water body and is connected to Sarasota Bay, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. Sarasota Bay is located approximately twelve hundred feet from the head of the basin and approximately eight hundred feet from the southern property line of the basin. As of the date of the hearing, the applicant, SBH, operated a permitted marina facility within the perimeter of the property in issue. This permit was issued years ago after the fact; that is, after the marina had already been constructed. As it currently exists, the marina is made up of perimeter docks which adjoin the northern and eastern sides of the basin and includes eight finger piers which provide ten to fifteen slips. In addition, a perimeter dock extends around an existing restaurant which sits on pilings over in the northeast end of the basin. Repairs and modifications were made to the facility under then-existing exemptions in 1995. These included the replacement of numerous copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA) treated pilings and the re-decking of existing walkways and finger piers with CCA-treated wood. At the present time, seven of the finger-pier slips are under lease to a commercial charter fleet, Chitwood Charters, and one slip located along the perimeter dock is leased to a dive boat operation, Scuba Quest. At least one other finger-pier slip has a boat docked at it for an extended period. This boat is owned by Charles Githler, president of SBH. The remaining finger-pier and perimeter slips are ordinarily used on a transient basis by guests of the Hyatt Hotel and the restaurant. The existing facility, including the finger piers slips and the perimeter slips, contains approximately 6,700 square feet of docking space and is designed to accommodate between twenty to thirty boats, depending upon the length of the boats. On occasion, however, as many as 40 to 60 boats have been docked at the facility. At times, when demand increases, the larger slips have been subdivided to allow up to four boats to be stern-moored per slip. Even more boats have been docked at the facility for boat shows by the use of stern mooring or "rafting," which calls for boats to be moored tied together, side by side, out from the docks. By application dated May 18, 1999, and received by the Department's Tampa District office on June 16, 1999, SBH sought to obtain from the Department a permit to modify and expand its existing marina facility. It proposed to expand the existing approximately 6,700 square feet of dock space to approximately 7,000 square feet, thereby creating a marina with 32 designated slips. Conditions to issuance of the permit, agreed to by the applicant, include a limitation on the number of boats which may be moored at the facility at any time and the addition of storm water treatment capability to the existing storm water drainage system. SBH also agreed to reduce the terminal end of the middle pier from 900 to 400 square feet. SBH also agreed to accept the imposition of several other permit conditions required by the Department, and to offset any impacts on wildlife and water quality as a result of the operation of the permitted facility. In addition to requiring that all long-term slip leases incorporate prohibitions against live-aboards and dockside boat maintenance, these conditions include the following: Overboard discharges of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel shall not occur at the docks. Sewage pump-out service shall be available at the marina facility. * * * 18. Fish cleaning stations, boat repair facilities and refueling facilities are not allowed. 20. There shall be no fueling or fueling facilities at the facility. * * * 28. The shoreline enhancement indicated on Attachment A shall be implemented within 30 days. * * * 30. The permittee shall perform water quality monitoring within the basin at the locations indicated on Attachment A semiannually (January and July of each year) for a period of 5 years. * * * All piles shall be constructed of concrete with exception of 18 mooring piles identified in permit submittals. This permit authorizes the mooring (temporarily or permanently) of a maximum of [32] watercraft at the subject facility. A harbormaster must be designated and maintained at the subject facility. In order to be in compliance with this permit, the ”OARS Ultra-Urban" hydrocarbon adsorbent insert, or Department approved equal, must be installed within the catch basin inlets as shown on the approved drawings. At a minimum, the hydrocarbon adsorbent material shall be replaced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. More frequent inspections and replacement of the filtration media may be required, depending on local conditions and results of the required water quality monitoring. * * * The permittee/grantee/lessee shall ensure that: In order to provide protection to manatees during the operation of this facility, permanent manatee information and/or awareness sign(s) will be installed and maintained to increase boater awareness of the presence of manatees, and of the need to minimize the threat of boats to these animals. SBH has also agreed to replace existing CCA-treated wood decking with concrete and fiberglass decking and to replace approximately 80 existing CCA-treated wood pilings with concrete pilings. Based on its analysis of the permit application and the supporting documentation submitted therewith, the Department, on March 2, 2000, entered a Notice of Intent to issue the permit for this project. Shortly thereafter, on March 25, 2000, after obtaining a minimal extension of time to file, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing opposing the issuance of the proposed permit. Departmental decisions on water quality permits such as that in issue here are dependent upon the applicant satisfying the Department's requirements in several identified areas. These include the impact of the project on water quality; impact of the project on the public health, safety, and welfare; impact of the project on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species; impact of the project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion and shoaling; impact of the project on the immediate fishing, recreational values and marine productivity; impact of the project on archeological resources; impact of the project on the current condition and relative value of functions currently performed by areas to be affected; whether the project is permanent or temporary; and a balancing of the criteria, cumulative impacts, and secondary impacts. Addressing each of these in turn, it is clear that the current quality of the water within the existing marina is below established standards. Respondents admit that Petitioner has shown that the existing marina operation has diminished water quality conditions and created an environment that has potential adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife which frequent the basin as well as some of the neighboring property owners. This is not to say that these impacts were envisioned when the basin was constructed. However, other than as they relate to fish and wildlife and to water quality, the problems created by the marina do not relate to most permit criteria. The Respondent's experts calculate that due to its configuration and location, the basin naturally flushes approximately every 14.75 days. This is an inadequate time period to fully disperse any pollutants found in the basis. As a result of the inadequate flushing and the continuing use of the basin as a marina, there are resulting impacts to the water quality surrounding the existing facilities. Mr. Armstrong, Petitioner's water quality expert, indicated the project as proposed would lengthen even further the flushing time because of the addition of new boats and, to a lesser degree, the additional pilings and dock structure. These additions would, he contends, result in additional obstructions to water movement and cause a resultant increase in flushing time. While flushing is not a requirement of the permit, it has a bearing on water quality which is a consideration. Petitioners also argue that the mitigation measures proposed in the permit are inadequate and attack the qualifications of Mr. Cooper, the Department's storm water engineer. They point out alleged errors in Cooper's analysis and cite Mr. Armstrong, an individual with significant experience in water quality monitoring and analysis, to support their other witnesses' conclusions that more boats will increase the risk of hydrocarbon pollution from gasoline and diesel engines. Petitioners urge that the increased contamination, when coupled with the slow flushing action, would tend to settle down to where the pollutants enter the water - in the basin. Since it is clear these impacts would exist and continue even were the pending project not constructed, the issue, then, is whether the proposed project will worsen these environmental impacts. Respondents' authorities calculate they would not. In fact, it would appear the proposed changes called for in the permit, the removal of CCA-treated wood and its replacement with concrete piling and decking and the installation of storm water treatment apparatus, would reduce the adverse impacts to water quality within the basin and, in fact, improve it. It is so found. An issue is raised in the evidence as to the actual number of boats which can effectively use the marina at any one time. SBH contends the present configuration calls for between twenty to thirty boats. Evidence also shows that at times, during boat shows for example, many more boats are accommodated therein through "rafting." Even if the facility is expanded by the most significant number of slips, there is no concrete evidence there would be a significantly increased usage. The current usage is normally well below capacity. Modifications proposed under the pending permit could add as many as ten to fifteen additional slips. The Department has considered it significant that SBH has agreed to limit the number of boats that can be docked in this marina, even after modification. Unfortunately, no specific figure has been given for this limit, and, therefore, it cannot be shown exactly how much long-term water quality benefit can be expected. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw, as the Department has done, that if the number of boats is limited to a figure at or even slightly higher that that which is currently experienced, a long-term benefit can be expected with the implementation of the other mitigation conditions. This benefit currently cannot be quantified, however. What can be established, and all parties agree, is that the basin currently does not meet water quality standards for copper and dissolved oxygen. The proposed permit addresses the issue of dissolved oxygen by requiring SBH to follow best management practices in the operation of the marina; to treat storm water discharge which enters the marina; and to provide a sewage pump-out station at the marina which would prevent the discharge of sewage into the water. The issue of the water's copper level is addressed by the removal of the CCA-treated pilings and decking and their replacement with concrete and fiberglass; the treatment of the storm-water discharge before its discharge into the basin; and the hiring of a harbor master to ensure that the prohibition against hull scraping at the basin is complied with. A restriction on the number of boats allowed into the marina at any one time would also treat the copper problem by reducing the exposure to anti-fouling paint containing copper. This is a condition of the permit. It is important to note that under existing statutory and rule exemptions, SBH could repair or replace the existing dock structure without the need for a permit. However, the issuance of a permit which permits modification and a slight expansion of the facility will prohibit the replacement of the existing CCA-treated wood with CCA-treated wood. The concrete and fiberglass pilings and decking will not leach copper into the water and, in time, should result in a lower concentration of that substance in the water. Another consideration of the permitting authorities relates to the impact the project would have on public health, safety, and welfare. Petitioners expressed concern that an increase in the number of slips called for in the proposed project would cause an increase in the number of boats that utilize the basin. Currently, though there are a limited number of slips available, there is no limitation on the number of boats which may use the facility. A reasonable estimate of capacity, considering the configuration of the docks and slips and the permit limitations established, indicates that no more than thirty-two boats will be permitted to use the basin at any one time. If this limitation is followed, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the water quality. Petitioners also express concern that an increase in the number of authorized boats using the marina will result in an increase in the number of boats traveling at excessive speeds in entering and exiting. No evidence was introduced in support of this theory, but, in any case, Respondents counter- hypothesize that the increase in allowed boats will result in an increase in long term lessors over transients, and suggest that long term users are more considerate than transients. Neither side presented any substantial evidence in support of its positions. The impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife is a mandated consideration by the agency. No evidence was presented by either side regarding the existence of fish and wildlife in the area, much less threatened species, other than manatees. To be sure, these noble creatures inhabit the marina at times in appreciable numbers. The threat to them, however, comes from boat strikes, and no evidence was presented as to the number of strikes caused by boats in the marina or its approaches or the seriousness of these strikes. The agency to which the review of impacts to manatees was left, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) opined that the permit cap of 32 boats would keep to a minimum the potential impact to manatees from this project. Any increase in the number of boats, and the minimal impact increase thereby, should, it was considered, be offset by compliance with permit conditions. This opinion was contradicted by Mr. Thompson, Petitioner's manatee expert, who argued against any increase of boat traffic in manatee areas. This position is not the policy of the Department and is not controlling here. Further, it would appear this expert did not consider any mitigation factors proposed by SBH, as the Department is required to do. Taken together, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the expected impact of this project on fish and wildlife, including those threatened and endangered species, is minimal. Based on the evidence of record, it is found that the expected impact of this project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion, and shoaling in the vicinity is virtually non- existent. The only factor bearing on this issue is the number of boats which will use the facility and its approach. Permit conditions call for a limitation on the number of water craft which will use the facility to be permitted to a number lower than that which uses it, at times, under current conditions. The water is a dead-end harbor, with no through traffic. There is no evidence of either erosion or shoaling now. It would not likely increase. A reduction in traffic as would occur under the conditions imposed by the permit can do nothing but reduce the potential for propeller dredging by boat traffic and the water turbidity that would accompany such strikes. This would improve navigation slightly, and there should be no adverse impact to the flow of water. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish any negative impact on fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project, which is permanent in nature. By the same token, no adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources was shown by the evidence of record. The facility in issue is currently a commercial activity consisting of a docking facility and a restaurant. No evidence was introduced to show that the project proposed would have an adverse impact on the current condition and relative value of the current function. In fact, the evidence indicates that the facility would be improved. Though not raised by the evidence, it should be noted that Petitioners presented no evidence that their property values as adjacent property owners, would be adversely effected by this project. In balancing the criteria, cumulative impacts and secondary impacts of the proposed project on the immediate and surrounding area, it appears that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. The marina supports the hotel and restaurant which is on it. Adjoining property owners, the Petitioners, expressed concern that the modifications to the existing marina will result in a decrease in water quality in the basin; will increase the potential for fuel spills with their related short term discomforts and long term damages; and will increase the danger to the manatee population which periodically uses the basin. While they are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property, it is unreasonable for those who live on the water to expect that the benefits of living by the water would not carry with it the potential for some periodic discomfort created by waterfront activity. The weight of the evidence presented in this case indicates no significant cumulative adverse impacts from this project. To the contrary, the state of the evidence suggests an improvement in water quality and navigation in the basin and its approaches, and any secondary impacts resulting from the accomplishment of the project would be minimal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order issuing to Sarasota Bay Hotel the requested permit to modify and expand the existing marina facility located adjacent to the existing Hyatt Hotel at 1000 Boulevard of the Arts in Sarasota, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara B. Levin, Esquire Scott A. Haas, Esquire Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford & Gordon 240 South Pineapple Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236 Graig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark A. Hanson, Esquire Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A. 2033 Main Street Suite 403 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Sarasota County's application for a permit authorizing the construction of a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery well system at the Central County Water Reclamation Facility in Sarasota, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 14, 1999, the County, through its Utilities Department, filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) test well and monitor well system at its Central County Water Reclamation Facility, 79005 South McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. On July 19, 2001, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 160882-001-UC. The permit authorizes the County to construct one test well to determine the feasibility for the storage and recovery of reclaimed water from the Suwannee Limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer system at a depth of between 500 and 700 feet below land surface. Also, the County is authorized to construct three monitor wells, one into the target storage zone, the second into the first overlying transmissive unit, and the last into the overlying Arcadia Formation. The storage capacity of the test well is projected to be between one and two million gallons per day. On August 10, 2001, Petitioner, who is a citizen of the State of Florida, resides in Tallahassee, and is a long- time employee of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., filed her verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) under Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In her Petition, she generally contended that the permitting would have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the water of the State because the proposed injectate (being placed in the well) will not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, may be harmful to human health, and will violate the minimum criteria for groundwater. She also contends that the permit application was not signed by the proper signatory and that the Department failed to require the County to first drill an exploratory well (as opposed to a test well). While these allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner's substantial interests were affected by the proposed permitting, they were deemed sufficient (subject to proof at final hearing) to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Water Reuse Generally Water reuse is the use of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Because of Florida's continuing population growth and occasional water shortage, the use of reclaimed water is an important conservation tool. Indeed, in 2002 the Legislature showed strong support for water conservation and reuse by amending Section 403.064(1), Florida Statutes, and adding language which states that "the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." To this end, the County has filed its application for the purpose of using reclaimed water for such lesser uses as irrigation so that the existing high quality fresh groundwater can be used for higher and better purposes such as drinking water for the general public. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) has also encouraged the use of reclaimed water by providing funding for this type of program to induce utilities to move forward with reuse programs. In addition, the Department has been proactive in promoting the reuse of water throughout the State in order to conserve water resources. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a reuse program encouraged by the Legislature, Department, and District. It involves the storage of water underground in a suitable formation, through a well, during times when water is available to put into the well, and then recovery of that stored water from the well during times when it is needed for some beneficial purpose. Put another way, an ASR operates like an underground storage tank. Water is placed into the ASR wells (by means of pumping) during recharge periods when it is raining and there is no demand for reclaimed water. When the water is pumped into the well, a stored water bubble is created by using buffer zones made of water with more salinity than the stored water. These buffer zones are designed so that there can be full recovery of the stored water. The recovery rate is generally around 100 percent. There are three ways to store reclaimed water: surface ponds, storage tanks, and ASR. The ASR storage method is the most efficient method of storing reclaimed water, and it has significant environmental, utility, and economic benefits. The ASR method has no impact on wetlands and ecosystems, and unlike pond storage (and to a lesser degree storage tanks), it does not require the use of large surface areas and is not affected by evapotranspiration and seepage. (There is typically a 60 percent loss of water due to evaporation in surface storage areas.) It also results in cost savings (up to a 50 percent reduction in capital costs) and avoidance of wetlands impacts. One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to maximize the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Because other storage methods have proved to be inefficient, ASR is the County's preferred storage method to meet this goal. At the time of the final hearing (August 2002), there were at least fifty-six ASR systems operating outside the State of Florida (and around one hundred more in various stages of development) and eleven ASR systems successfully operating in the State, the first one having been established in 1983. At that time, there were also two ASR test programs underway in the area, including one in the Englewood Water District, a few miles to the south of the proposed project, and the Northwest Hillsborough ASR program, which is located just north of the County. Also, ASR systems are located in Manatee County and near the Peace River, which is in the same storage area being proposed here. Therefore, the County has the benefit of drawing upon twenty years of experience with this type of system. The Permit The County began an informal water reuse program in 1988, when it first used effluent disposal for irrigation purposes at a local golf course. A formal program (the Reuse Master Plan) was commenced in 1994; however, the County still lacks the storage capacity to meet the seasonal demands of its reuse customers.3 Without storage, any excess water must be discharged and lost. In order to meet the County's goal of maximizing reclaimed water use, it must be able to adequately store reclaimed water. Due to projected population growth and issues concerning management of limited resources, in 1997 the County began considering the use of ASR as a means to better manage its reclaimed water supply and demand for those facilities which serve the North County Reuse System. If all necessary permits are obtained, the County intends to use reclaimed water from its Central County wastewater facility. Currently, that effluent receives advanced tertiary treatment with deep bed filtration and high level disinfection. The proposed test well will be approximately 700 feet deep; at that depth, the injection (or storage) zone will consist of the Suwannee Limestone formation of the Upper Floridan aquifer system. The storage zone is brackish, with the water quality or salinity having about six times the acceptable degree of salinity for a drinking water source. It is anticipated that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the injection zone will be greater than 3,000 TDS. If water quality at the proposed injection zone is greater than 3,000 TDS, this fact will be revealed during the construction of the test injection well and during the various tests to be conducted during construction. (Assuming this level of TDS is found, then at that point the County would have to provide reasonable assurance that the water reclamation facility is providing full or principal treatment to the domestic waste.) The evidence establishes that there is some level of transmissivity in the confining layer overlying the proposed injection zone. That is to say, there is some small degree of connectivity between the proposed injection zone and the aquifer above it. The actual level of transmissivity will be determined based upon tests run during the construction of the first monitor well. The effluent produced from the County's water reclamation facility meets drinking water standards. If the plant is unable to produce effluent that meets or exceeds the applicable water quality standards, this issue is an operational concern which can be addressed in a permit modification authorizing operational testing. Under the Department's permit process, if the construction permit is approved, the County will construct a monitor well to obtain more site-specific information concerning such things as the geology, hydrology, and water quality at the site. (At this point, while the County has published literature sources and regional geologic information from two nearby ASR systems using the same storage area to rely upon, it has no specific data for the very small parcel where the well will be constructed.) Once the information is obtained, an engineering report is prepared and submitted to the Department. That report contains a wide array of technical data, including construction data, hydrogeologic data, formation samples, water quality samples, hydraulic data, core data, Packer data, and geophysical data. This information is then used by the Department (and a special advisory committee called the Technical Advisory Committee) to evaluate whether the site can be authorized for cycle testing and later for operational purposes. If cycle testing is appropriate, the County must then request a modification to its construction permit to authorize cycle testing of its ASR well. That modification, and any others that may be warranted by the new information, are "final agency action subject to the procedural safeguards contained in Chapter 120, F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(2). When the test injection well is constructed and eventually placed into operation, monitor wells will be used to monitor background water in both the injection zone and in the two aquifers overlying the proposed injection zone. However, until further Department approval is obtained, no injection of reclaimed water is authorized; the permit being sought here authorizes only the construction of the well itself. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.640(1)(a) requires that the County obtain a separate operation permit after the construction permit has been issued and testing completed. Criteria and Standards for a Class V Well Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528 governs all injection wells defined as Class I, III, IV, or V wells. (In Class II wells, the injected fluids are used in connection with oil and natural gas production and are regulated by the Florida Geological Survey under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes.) The category of wells in which the County seeks a permit is a Class V, Group 3 permit, which includes all domestic wastewater wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.300(1)(e)3. A Group 3 well involves the injection of fluids that have been processed through a permitted domestic wastewater treatment plant. Even though the County is requesting a permit for a Class V well, at the request of the Department, it submitted a different (and more stringent) type of application (a "900" application) since the Department has the authority to apply "any of the criteria for Class I wells" if it believes that the well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.605(2). (A Class I well is a well used to inject hazardous waste below the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water.) In this case, the Department opted to apply certain Class I construction standards for the well, in addition to the normal standards for Class V wells. Those standards are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.400. This means that the County will be held to a higher standard than a general underground injection control permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605 contains the Class V well construction standards. For the following reasons, the County has given reasonable assurance that all criteria will be met. Subsection (1) of the rule requires that "a well shall be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction shall be approved by the Department with a permit." The evidence clearly establishes that good engineering practices have been followed by the County for the design and construction of the well. Subsection (2) requires that an applicant design and construct the well so that it will not "cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard . . . or may cause fluids of significantly differing water quality to migrate between underground sources of drinking water." Subsection (3) is also directed at the migration of fluids. The evidence shows that the migration of fluids between aquifers will be prevented as a part of the design and construction of the ASR well program. The design chosen by the County has been proven to prevent migration of fluids between aquifers, and it will preserve the integrity of the confining beds. The combination of steel casing and cementing prevents the migration of fluids along the borehole. The well will be constructed by a Florida licensed contractor, as required by Subsection (4). The remaining criteria in the rule will be satisfied during the construction process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.620 contains reporting requirements for Class V wells. All of these requirements are included in the draft permit and will be met by the County. The Department has also included Special Condition 1(h) in the draft permit, which provides that nothing will be injected into the well that does not meet the Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard. This condition is drawn from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.307, which specifies general conditions to be included in underground injection control permits. In accordance with this condition, the County will monitor the movement of fluid to ensure that there are no violations. The County has also demonstrated that there will be no hazardous waste injection, as prohibited by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.600(1)(a). Finally, the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.630(3) do not apply at this time since the proposed permit is only for construction of a well, and not the injection of water. Class I Well Construction Standards Because the Department has imposed more stringent construction standards on the County, the Class I well construction standards found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(1) come into play. The County has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirement that the well be cemented and cased. In addition, the County has considered corrosion protection in the cementing and casing of the proposed well. Because the casing will be cemented, coating is not required. Finally, there will be no open annulus (spacing between the casings and the bore hole) in the ASR test well. Other Requirements Drilling Geophysical surveys will be conducted during the pilot hole drilling stages to collect hydrogeologic information. Further, drill stem tests will be conducted throughout the drilling, and a driller's log will be maintained. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.410(3). Casing Steel casing will be used, taking into consideration the possible corrosion of steel. The life expectancy of the well was considered, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(4)(a), and was determined to be unknown. Cement Type 2 cement will be used, which is sulfate resistant and is specifically designed for use in regions such as Florida. Testing Geophysical logs will be used during the construction and testing of the well to verify the physical conditions of the well and confirm that construction is proceeding according to the plan. Also, geophysical surveys will be conducted during pilot hole drilling stages to collect subsurface hydrogeologic information. Environmental concerns Once a drilling contractor is selected, the location for the disposal of drilling fluids will be submitted for Department approval in accordance with Special Condition 1(b) in the draft permit. Monitor well construction standards The monitor well will meet all construction requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.420. (The same standards that are applied to Class V wells are also applied to monitor wells.) General design considerations Exploratory pilot hole drilling stages will be conducted to collect hydrogeologic information, and complete sets of geophysical surveys will be performed. Because cement generates heat, temperature surveys will be run as a part of the construction sequence to verify coverage of the cement. This means that tools will be lowered into the hole after each cementing stage to verify coverage. Monitoring requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(d) requires that an applicant perform "a demonstration of mechanical integrity . . . at least once every five years during the life of the well." Details to accomplish this are found in both the application and the draft permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(f) requires that the background water quality of the injection zone and monitoring zone be determined prior to injection. The County will perform this task before injection occurs. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(g) requires that monitor wells be installed above the injection zone near the project. The County will construct three wells, as required by the rule. They will also be placed at a sufficient distance from the project, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(h), and the specific monitoring intervals are detailed in the draft permit. Reporting requirements The Department requires periodic data reports and progress reports regarding eight separate types of information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.430(1)(a). These reporting requirements will be performed and followed. Because a Class V well may be required to be plugged and abandoned, the Department requires a plugging and abandonment report. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.625. All requirements under this rule have been met, and the County has the financial resources to accomplish this task, when required. General Class I permitting requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440 sets forth general permitting requirements for Class I and III wells. Because the Department has opted to impose certain Class I criteria on the County's application, some of the criteria in this rule apply. They include special conditions 1(a), (c), and (e) in the permit for well construction, system modification, and fluid injection, all of which have been, or will be, met by the County. In addition, the duration for the operation permit cannot exceed five years, and the County was required to submit an application for a permit which conformed with the requirements of the rule. As a part of its application, the County established an area of review for the construction permit, taking into account the zone of endangering influence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(4). (An area of review is the area surrounding an injection well, including the area of possible endangering influence.) This requirement was met because the established area of review is one mile even though the predicted area of influence is expected to be no more than 400 feet. As a part of the preceding analysis, the County also conducted an area of review study, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440(6)(a). In doing so, the County evaluated the impact on the ASR well, and the impact the ASR well would have on the surrounding area. That evaluation determined that there are no water supply wells within the area of review. Because the construction permit only has a duration of five years, and given the County's supporting information submitted with the area of influence study, the Department has not required that the County provide a corrective action plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(5)(a). Class I well construction permit criteria All guidelines for constructing the well have been followed, and the construction of the well will not be a source of pollution. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will function in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62- 528. Hydrological modeling Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.405 specifies criteria for evaluating the geologic and hydrologic environment of Class I wells. The County has satisfied all criteria in the rule. Other Issues Exploratory well Petitioner contends that the Department should require the County to construct an exploratory well, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.603(1), rather than a test well. That rule defines an exploratory well as one being "drilled for the specific purpose of obtaining information to determine the feasibility of underground injection at the proposed site." However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.450(1)(b) requires an exploratory well only "for those projects located in an area where available information is lacking concerning geologic or hydraulic confinement or existing information indicates that geologic or hydraulic confinement may be poor or lacking." For example, an exploratory well would be required in a remote area (such as certain parts of Polk County) where the Department had insufficient literature, studies, or prior history concerning the general geology across and around the site. In this case, two nearby ASR systems are located in the Englewood Water District and near the Peace River and use the same storage zone as that proposed by the County. Those systems have been operating for a number of years, and the County and Department can draw upon that experience. Given this significant regional geologic information, an exploratory well is not required. More importantly, the requirement for an exploratory well applies only to Class I well construction, and not Class V wells, and the Department properly exercised its discretion to not apply that requirement to the County's Class V application. Signature on the application and other documents Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.340(1)(c) requires that all permit applications by a local government be signed by "either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official." Also, subsection (2) of the same rule requires that "reports required by permits and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described in subsection (1) of this section [a principal executive officer or the highest ranking elected official], or by a duly authorized representative of that person." Petitioner contends that these requirements were not met. The County's application was signed by James E. Caldwell, who was then the Manager of Sarasota County Utilities. At that time, Mr. Caldwell had overall responsibility for the County's utility operations. On August 27, 2002, James L. Ley, the County Administrator (and principal executive officer of the County), also executed the original copy of the application. (That is, on that date he signed the original application underneath Mr. Caldwell's signature.) By doing so, Mr. Ley cured any previous technical deficiency in the application. Responses to requests for additional information which were submitted to the Department during the review process were signed by one of the County's outside consultants. However, on January 13, 2002, Mr. Ley submitted a letter to the Department authorizing various County employees and agents to act on his behalf in processing the instant application. Accordingly, the outside consultant was a duly-authorized representative of the chief executive and was authorized to sign those documents. Satisfaction of injection criteria Petitioner also contends that before a construction permit may be issued, the County must meet all principal treatment and disinfection requirements, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.466 and 62-528.563. However, those rules apply to permits which authorize the injection of reclaimed water into the groundwater. Here, the requested permit does not authorize injection, and therefore those requirements do not apply. Groundwater criteria Even though Petitioner conceded at hearing that the issue of whether the construction of the proposed wells would harm the environment was not raised in her Petition, the County provided reasonable assurance that this was not an issue of concern. Adequacy of permit conditions Petitioner also suggested at hearing that the proposed conditions in the permit are insufficient. However, she failed to show in what respect they were insufficient or how they should be amended. Water quality concerns Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605(3) requires that a Class V well be constructed so that its intended use does not violate the applicable water quality standards. On this issue, the evidence establishes that the construction of the proposed test well and monitor system will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. Indeed, a well and monitor station does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed according to the technical requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528, does not cause pollution. Therefore, the County's compliance with the technical requirements of the Department's regulations is reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not cause pollution. I. Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theory that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party who has participated for a "frivolous, meritless, and improper purpose" within the meaning of Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. This argument is based on the assertion that Petitioner is a non- prevailing party, that is, she failed to substantially change the outcome of the proposed final agency action which is the subject of this proceeding, and she "failed to produce any witnesses or evidence to support [her] claim that the proposed permit that was the subject of this proceeding should not be issued." While it is true that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party, she attempted to utilize the testimony of three expert witnesses previously retained by the City of Venice, a former party in Case No. 01-3516. Those subpoenas, however, were quashed on August 16, 2002, and that ruling was memorialized in an Order dated August 19, 2002, or just before the final hearing began. Without those witnesses, Petitioner's presentation was obviously limited in some respects.4 Further, until the final hearing, Petitioner assumed that evidence in support of her allegation that the injectate would harm the water quality would be admissible and relevant. (As this Recommended Order clearly points out, however, not a single drop of water can be injected into the well until a modification of the permit is obtained, and therefore such evidence is irrelevant.) During the course of the hearing, the undersigned sustained objections by the County and Department to the introduction of such evidence. This ruling had the effect of limiting the scope of the issues to be tried. Despite these limitations, her participation cannot be described as being frivolous or meritless, as claimed by the County, and it is found that she did not participate for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Permit No. 160882-001- UC authorizing the County to construct one Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery injection well and monitor well system in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2004.
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 the Department of Environmental Regulation should grant a dredge and fill permit to James N. and Janice E. Nash authorizing removal of eleven cubic yards of soil, installation of five 24-inch culverts in lieu of two 18- inch culverts, and placement of 19 cubic yards of limerock in and around the bed of an unnamed creek near the point it reaches the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact More than a thousand acres in eastern Leon County comprise the drainage basin giving rise to the unnamed stream that intermittently wends its way across the Alvarez property, crosses the 30-foot wide "tongue" of the Nashes' lot, and traverses the Saltiels' land on its way to the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette (unless it reaches Alford Arm earlier because rain or other conditions have raised the lake, moving the water's edge upland.) Although neighbors allow them ingress and egress by another route, when flooding makes the roadway impassable, Mr. and Mrs. Nash have no legal right of access other than by the private road which crosses the intermittent stream. In addition to wetlands on either side, part of the streambed, 15 feet wide where it meets the roadway, was originally filled in 1968, when the private drive was built. The strip of land, 30 feet wide and 700 feet long that underlies most of the private road, joins the part of the parcel where the Nashes' house stands to Deep Wood Trail, the public thoroughfare which the private road enters. Leaving a car on the Deep Wood Trail side of the stream, wading across to the other side, and hiking to the house pose difficulties for Mr. Nash, who has muscular dystrophy. Under some conditions, the roadbed acts as a dam. When the lake is low, water flowing downstream may be impeded. When the lake is high, backwater moving in the other direction may be impeded. Of the two culverts installed when the private road was constructed, each with a diameter of 18 inches, only one permits water to flow through now, and even it is partially clogged. When Lake Lafayette rises above 45.3 feet NGVD, Alford Arm spills over the terrain between it and the Nashes' road, and reverses the flow in the streambed where it intersects the roadway. The "invert of the stream at the subject crossing [is] 44.3 feet [NGVD]." T.402. The roadbed is submerged in the vicinity of the stream when Alford Arm rises above 46.7 feet NGVD. The Nashes propose to excavate the streambed (about two and a half feet deep in the natural channel on either side of the existing fill) where it crosses (diagonally) the Nashes' private road, remove the existing culverts together with the soil in which they are embedded, install five culverts, each 24 inches in diameter, in their stead, install cement bag riprap at the ends of the culverts, remove 11 cubic yards of dirt from a 205' by 10' wide section of existing road surface and replace with 19 cubic yards of lime rock surface, Nashes' Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, realigning the roadway slightly (to avoid the existing encroachment on the Saltiels' property) and increasing the roadbed's elevation over a 205-foot stretch by no more than four inches. Five trees are to be removed, but other trees are to be protected "by tree protection barricades." Nashes' Exhibit No. 7A. Filter fences upstream and down would contain turbidity during construction. The plan is to lay sod and plant grass seed afterwards in order to prevent erosion. Larger culverts would permit the flow of a greater volume of water at lower velocity, more closely approximating the natural regime and reducing scour or erosion downstream. Even when water levels exceeded the elevation of the existing roadbed, more water than the existing culverts can accommodate could move through the proposed replacement culverts, and at a slower velocity. At water levels above the existing grade and below the proposed, slightly higher grade, however, the four inches or less of limerock added to the roadbed would act as a (presumably somewhat porous) barrier to flows that could now move over the roadway unimpeded. The proposed improvements would have no discernible effect on water levels whenever Alford Arm overtopped the roadbed. Ted L. Biddy, the professional engineer called as a witness by the Nashes, testified that a 25-year return two-hour storm would raise water immediately upstream of the roadway, when runoff concentrated there, to levels above the existing roadway grade, assuming that the drainage basin was saturated at the time of the rainfall and that all ponds within the basin were full, but that the level of Lake Lafayette was at or below 45.3 feet NGVD. T.489. "Ordinary high water for Alford Arm is 45.7 [feet NGVD.]" T.486. On this record, it can only be a matter of speculation how often (if ever) a 25-year return, two-hour storm might be expected to occur after rainfall has saturated the ground and filled all ponds in the drainage basin without raising the lake above 45.3 feet NGVD. The wet conditions Mr. Biddy assumed already to obtain in the drainage basin at the time of the hypothetical storm seem unlikely to coincide with the low lake level assumed to occur simultaneously. Alford Arm's 100-year flood level is 51 feet NGVD, "50.25 for the 25 year flood or rainfall, and elevation 49.9 for the 10 year storm water event." T.425. In any event, flooding of the Saltiels' property attributable to the proposed raising of the roadway would last only a matter of hours every quarter of a century according to Mr. Biddy, and would represent temporary diversion of water that would otherwise have flooded their property downstream of the roadway. Even then, no house or structure on the Saltiels' property would be affected nor any part of their property not within the 100-year flood plain. At all water levels below the existing roadway grade, the overwhelmingly more frequent condition, larger culverts would prevent or diminish flooding that might otherwise reach the Saltiels' property upstream of the roadway. By impeding flows downstream, the roadway affords some solids suspended in the water an opportunity to precipitate, instead of being borne on into Alford Arm. Under certain conditions, the larger culverts proposed by the Nashes would reduce time for particulate matter to settle upstream of the roadway; the greater volume of flow through larger culverts would reduce the time water was impounded upstream. Uncontroverted expert testimony established, however, that any increase in turbidity in water reaching Alford Arm would not violate applicable standards.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a dredge and fill permit to Mr. and Mrs. Nash for the project described in their application on the conditions stated in the notice of intent to issue. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 1, what knowledge petitioners are charged with is a matter of law. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6 and 32 pertain to immaterial matters as does petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 9. Only the dredge and fill permit DER proposes to grant the Nashes is at issue. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 30, the calculations of both Mr. Flatt and Mr. Biddy seem to be flawed. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 33, it is not clear that the proposed project would increase the flooding on the Saltiels' property significantly. Temporally de minimis, the change might amount only to relocating the flooding. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 34, see finding of fact No. 12. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 35, larger culverts will decrease the velocity of the flow through the culverts. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 36 is immaterial because it does not relate to any applicable rule or statutory standard. With respect to the individual respondents' and intervenor's (applicants') proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 6, backwater flows at levels above 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 9, the OHW is 45.7 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 11, testimony so implied. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mr. Nash suffers from muscular dystrophy. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only testimony regarding flooding concerned the critical 25-year return storm. With respect to DER's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, backflows begin at 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 4, not all fill would be removed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 5, testimony so implied. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 6, no statute or rule specifies a design storm. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is really a conclusion of law. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, less settling may result in more suspended solids under some conditions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is immaterial to the merits. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley P.O. Box 10166 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Candi E. Culbreath Patricia Comer 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carlos Alvarez c/o Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit should be issued to Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve a single-family development known as Walnut Creek, Phases I and II, in Gainesville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), proposes to issue an Environmental Resource Permit to Respondents, Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle (Applicants), authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system to serve Phases I and II of a single-family development known as Walnut Creek Subdivision in Gainesville, Florida. The system will be located on a 31-acre, L-shaped parcel of undeveloped, forested land. The proposed system includes a 135-lot single family subdivision, internal roadways with curb and gutter, a storm sewer system, and five dry retention ponds. The project site is located west of Northwest 13th Street (Highway 441) in the northwestern portion of the City of Gainesville between Northwest 39th Avenue (State Road 222) and Northwest 31st Boulevard, west of Palm Grove Subdivision, and east of Hidden Pines Subdivision. Petitioner, Glen Springs Preservation Association, Inc. (Association), is a corporation made up of an undisclosed number of persons, at least one of whom resides adjacent to or near the proposed project site. Petitioner, Elizabeth T. Furlow (Furlow), who did not indicate that she is a member, also resides with her husband near the project site. As set forth in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the proposed system fails to meet certain design and performance criteria, that the Applicants have failed to submit the appropriate documentation to satisfy the operation and maintenance entity requirements, and that the Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system meets the general requirements for issuance of a permit. More specifically, they contend that the requirements of Rules 40C-42.023(1)(a)-(c), 40C-42.025(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (10), 40C-42.026(1)(a), (c), and (d), and 40C- 42.027, Florida Administrative Code, have not been met.2 On these technical issues, the parties have presented conflicting expert testimony, and the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, as set forth in the findings below. Respondents have not stipulated to Petitioners' standing. Through the testimony of Furlow's husband, it was established that the Furlows live just south of the project site, approximately 100 yards north of Northwest 31st Boulevard near a creek known as Glen Springs Creek (Creek). The Furlows fear that if a permit is issued, runoff from the project site will cause further erosion of the Creek's banks and flooding during rainfall events. Although three persons who live adjacent to or near the project site appeared as witnesses, only one (Bonnie O'Brien) indicated that she is a member of the Association. Ms. O'Brien has lived just west of the Creek since 1969, around one-half mile from the project site. Over the years, and due to erosion caused by increasing development in the area, much of which began before the District began permitting stormwater systems, the Creek's banks have increased in depth from around a foot or so to as much as six feet. During large storm events, the Creek's waters rise up to as much as five feet in depth. Like the Furlows, Ms. O'Brien fears that runoff from the project will go into the Creek and adversely affect her property. There was, however, no evidence concerning the Association's interests, whether the Association is a Florida corporation, the number of members in the Association, and except for Ms. O'Brien, whether any of its members are substantially affected by the proposed activity.3 Design and performance criteria The Applicants propose to use a dry retention system consisting of five dry retention ponds ranging in depth from three to four and one-quarter feet which will be located mainly along the western boundaries of the project site. In general terms, stormwater runoff from the residential lots will sheet flow to roadways and alleys, will be collected by curbs and gutters, and then will be conveyed to the five ponds for water quality treatment. Rule 40C-42.025(1) requires that "[e]rosion and sediment control best management practices shall be used as necessary during construction to retain sediment on-site." The more persuasive evidence shows that the applicants have done so, and that the best management practices used by the Applicants are generally utilized throughout the development community. Therefore, the requirements of this rule have been met. Rule 40C-42.025(3) provides that unless applicable local regulations are more restrictive, "[n]ormally dry basins designed to impound more than two feet of water or permanently wet basins shall be fenced or otherwise restricted from public access." The proposed retention basins that have three-to-one (horizontal: vertical) side slopes will be fenced to prevent public access. The evidence also shows that there are no applicable, more restrictive local regulations. Under Rule 40C-42.025(4), "[a]ll stormwater basin side slopes shall be stabilized by either vegetation or other materials to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins." As to this requirement, the evidence establishes that all of the stormwater basin side slopes will be stabilized by vegetation to minimize erosion and sedimentation of the basins, as required by the rule. Further, the proposed retention basin side slopes are four-to-one and three-to-one. Slopes of this dimension are typically stable and will not easily erode. Rule 40C-42.025(5) requires that the systems be designed so that they "accommodate maintenance equipment access" and "facilitate regular operational maintenance." The evidence shows that the Applicants own the entire project site, and each of the five retention ponds can be accessed from roads and alleys within the project site. Rule 40C-42.025(6) requires that an applicant "obtain sufficient legal authorization as appropriate prior to permit issuance for stormwater management systems which propose to utilize offsite areas to satisfy the requirement in subsection 40C-42.023(1), F.A.C." Because the Applicants are not proposing to use any offsite areas for the system, and the system is located entirely on the project site, no "legal authorization" from other persons is required. Under Rule 40C-42.025(7), the system "shall provide gravity or pumped discharge that effectively operates under . . . [m]aximum stage in the receiving water resulting from the mean annual 24-hour storm." Calculations performed by the Applicants, and verified by the District's independent calculations, show that the system is designed to retain all of the runoff from the mean annual 24-hour storm event. Therefore, this rule has been satisfied. Rule 40C-42.025(8) provides that if a system serves a new construction area with greater than 50 percent impervious surface, an applicant is required to demonstrate that "post- development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge" for the mean annual 24-hour storm event. If the system serves a new construction area with less than 50 percent impervious surface, however, the requirements of this rule do not apply. The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will serve a new construction area (around 12 acres) with less than 50 percent impervious area. Therefore, the rule does not apply. Even so, the Applicants demonstrated that the post- development peak rate of discharge from the project site will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 24-hour storm event. In fact, the post-development peak rate of discharge from the project site during the 24-hour mean annual storm event will be zero. Finally, Rule 40C-42.025(10) requires in part that the construction plans and supporting calculations be "signed, sealed, and dated by an appropriate registered professional." The evidence shows that the final set of plans submitted in January 2002 by the Applicants was signed and sealed by H. Jerome Kelly, a professional engineer.4 Specific design and performance criteria Rule 40C-40.026(1)(a) requires that the retention system provide retention of stormwater runoff in one of four ways. Here, the Applicants have designed the system to provide "[o]n-line retention of an additional one half inch of runoff from the drainage area over the volume specified in subparagraph 1. above." Subparagraph 1. requires "[o]ff-line retention of the first one half of runoff or 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious area, whichever is greater[.]" Because the system will provide on-line retention of a minimum of one inch of runoff from the project area, plus 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious soil in the project/drainage area, it is found that the capacity of the proposed retention system is more than adequate to capture the quantity of stormwater runoff required by this rule. Under Rule 40C-42.026(1)(c), the system must be designed to "[p]rovide the capacity for the appropriate treatment volume of stormwater specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) above, within 72 hours following the storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions." To assure compliance with this rule, and to demonstrate that the system meets the required recovery of the water quality treatment volume, the District performed modeling to predict the vertical infiltration rate and the groundwater mounding effects of the proposed retention system. For the reasons stated below, it is found that the system will provide the required amount of treatment volume capacity within 72 hours of a storm event assuming average antecedent moisture conditions, as required by the rule. The District used one of the latest versions of the MODRET computer modeling program, a methodology routinely used by the District to support an application for this type of retention system. That program takes into account vertical percolation into the soil; once the water reaches the water table, the model then takes into account the lateral or horizontal movement of the water out of the pond. The model is used to determine whether the required water quality treatment volume, which is significantly less than the storage volume in the ponds, will draw down within three days. The modeling confirmed that this requirement will be satisfied. Data from the Applicants' on-site soil survey was used in the model to establish the depth below ground surface of the seasonal high water table level. This resulted in a conservative assumption of an above-normal average antecedent moisture condition beneath the retention ponds. The Applicants also collected soil samples from the project site, including those areas where the retention ponds will be located, and they performed laboratory tests in accordance with ASTM D2434 to calculate the vertical hydraulic conductivity and the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for those soils. The results of both tests fall within accepted ranges as stated in the published soils texts and governmental soils surveys for the project area. In addition, the Applicants conducted an independent test to determine the mean seasonal high water table on the project site. Based on visual observations of the soil samples, the Applicants determined that the mean seasonal high water table is between six and seven feet below ground surface. The visual observation of the soil samples is compatible with the results of Petitioners' soil augers obtained off the project site. As noted earlier, the proposed retention ponds will have a depth of three to four and one-quarter feet, which places the bottom of the ponds above the mean high water table as determined by the Applicants' calculations and as stated in the soils survey for Alachua County. Therefore, the dry retention ponds should not be considered impervious surfaces. Finally, Rule 40C-42.026(1)(d) requires that the retention system "[b]e stabilized with pervious material or permanent vegetation cover." The evidence shows that the proposed retention system will be stabilized with permanent vegetative cover. Other requirements and concerns Runoff from other developed properties in the vicinity of the proposed project site discharges into the Creek, contributing to erosion in the Creek. Not all of these existing developments have stormwater management systems on-site, since some of the older properties were built before the District assumed regulation over this activity. The proposed system can be effectively operated and maintained without causing or exacerbating the erosion problems that currently exist within the Creek system. This is because once the system is built, the amount of runoff leaving the site will be less than what is now present in the pre-development state. Thus, the project, as now designed, will not adversely affect drainage and flood protection on adjacent or nearby properties. Through the submission of a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants for the Walnut Creek Homeowner's Association, the Applicants demonstrated that the District's requirements regarding the operation and maintenance of the proposed system after completion of construction will be met, as required by Rule 40C-42.027(4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting application number 42-001- 71000-1 of Luther E. Blake, Jr. and Irene Blake Caudle for an Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2002.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1994, Respondent, Jeff Dyson, applied for a dredge and fill permit from the Department to place an unspecified volume of fill within an historically-existing drainage ditch which carries water to the St. Johns River. The proposed project would direct the drainage currently flowing through the ditch into a 15-inch culvert, which would be installed on the property identified as Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. Swales and structures associated with the culvert are to be constructed during the project and are considered a part of the proposal. See Department's Exhibit 1. The proposed project would place fill in waters of the State, thereby necessitating the Department's approval of the permit. The proposed project, as stated above, is located on Lot 3 of Riverwood Subdivision. The Petitioner owns Lot 4 of Riverwood Subdivision which is located to the east and downstream of the proposed project. The proposed project is located in Riverwood Subdivision which is already developed and single- family residences have been built on both of the lots adjacent to Lot 3. Respondent, Jeff Dyson, seeks the permit in order to develop Lot 3 and build a house on it. The drainage ditch which would be filled runs west to east across the center of Lot 3 and is between four and six feet wide. The depth of this 4itch increases as it moves west to east, reaching a depth of four feet at the eastern edge of the property, where it adjoins the Petitioner's lot. The proposed project would re-route the storm water runoff, which flows into the drainage ditch, around the single-family residence which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to build. The storm water runoff would be routed through a buried 15-inch culvert from the point of intersection of the existing ditch on the western boundary of the property to the point of discharge at the intersection of the existing ditch and the eastern boundary of the property. Filling of the drainage ditch previously was permitted by the Department in 1984 as part of the subdivision's development plan which authorized Robert A. Weyand to fill the ditch and construct along the southern boundary of the subdivision a swale which would redirect the then-existing drainage through the swale. The swale was constructed; however, the ditch was never filled. The swale carries the majority of the drainage entering the subdivision under Pine Street down the southern boundary of the subdivision to the St. John's River, Two 24-inch culverts under Riverwood Avenue remain from the drainage system which predates Mr. Weyand's permit. According to Mr. Potter, this old drainage system carries peak loads into the drainage ditch which Respondent, Jeff Dyson, proposes to fill at Lot 3. The 24-inch culverts were installed when the subdivision was developed in 1981; however, one of the culverts is completely blocked and the other is only partially open. Contrary to Mr. Potter's assertions about peak loads, the ditch collects water in light rains, and storm water pools on the southwesterly side of Riverwood Avenue and overflows Riverwood Avenue into the ditch flowing easterly in the direction of the proposed project. Riverwood Avenue, the only street in the subdivision, was designed to direct storm water along its curb and gutter system from west to east. This water adds to the flow over Riverwood Avenue at the point of the culvert where it joins with water running in the old drainage system and flows into the drainage ditch. The project, as designed by Mr. Potter, would not adversely effect the quantity of water east of the project. The project was designed so that there would no increase in the rate of runoff with the construction of the proposed residence. The project should not create any flooding downstream because there would be no alteration to the quantity or direction of the existing flows. Mr. Potter used the Department of Transportation (DOT) rainfall intensity duration frequency curves to determine the rainfall amount from the 1.88 acres on the western end of the subdivision upstream of the project. The DOT rainfall intensity duration frequency curves are widely accepted criteria for determining runoff for residential developments. In computing the amount of drainage flow which the 15- inch culvert would have to handle, Mr. Potter considered (1) the rainfall for a ten-year storm on the 1.88 acres at the westerly end of the subdivision, and (2) the flow under Pine Street through the existing culvert, which constitutes a limit to the potential flow into the drainage system at the southwest corner of the subdivision. The 15-inch culvert designed by Mr. Potter would handle two times the amount of water generated based upon the stated assumptions in a ten-year storm event. The proposed project would not increase these existing flows; however, the quantity of water exceeds the flow from the western portion of the subdivisions computed by Mr. Potter which follows the natural slope of the terrain into the old existing ditch system. The Petitioner introduced a video of the storm water collection and flow in a light rain at the location of the culvert under Riverwood Avenue. This video shows that the existing culverts under Riverwood Avenue will not handle the flow of water in the ditch southwest of Riverwood Avenue; therefore, the storm water backs up and flows over Riverwood Avenue at this point into the ditch east of Riverwood Avenue. Other than the ditch under Pine Street and the runoff from the 1.88 acres at the western end of the subdivision, the only other source of storm water runoff is the runoff on Riverwood Avenue. Mr. Potter observed the video and indicated that the amount of water appeared to exceed his computations. The Petitioner testified regarding the water levels in the ditch underneath his foot bridge over the ditch. During significant storm events, the water level reaches the bottom of the foot bridge. The area underneath the foot bridge exceeds the area of a 15-inch culvert. Water flow during a significant storm is unrestricted downstream of the foot bridge, and is not dammed up. The proposed project will constitute a dam on the existing drainage ditch with a 15-inch outfall. Based upon the video of the storm water runoff generated by a light rain, the Petitioner's observations of storm water runoff in the ditch during a significant storm event, and the design of the storm water runoff on Riverwood Avenue, it can be reasonably anticipated that the proposed project will dam up water to the west of the project to the highest level of the swale in front of the proposed project. Although the proposed project will not adversely effect the quantity of water, the water impounded by the project would cause a significant flooding problem for the upstream property owner. The design of the culvert does not provide for protection against children being pulled into the culvert system. The water impounded by the proposed culvert system would be an attraction to children who would be at risk of being pulled into the culvert. It is particularly dangerous because the ditch is much shallower southwest of Riverwood Avenue, and when flooded, the depth of the ditch northeast of Riverwood Avenue is not apparent. The water quality standards are currently being met at the site of the proposed project. The proposed project, as constructed, is not expected to cause any water quality violations. The permit contains conditions designed to maintain water quality during actual construction. These conditions include General Conditions No. 4 and 5 and Special Conditions 5- 10. Reasonable assurances were provided that water-quality standards will not be violated by the proposed project if built in accordance with the designs submitted. The design of the 15-inch culvert includes a 90 degree change of direction before connecting to the outfall on Lot 4. This 90-degree change in direction will dissipate the energy of the water, reducing the likelihood of scouring or erosion at the outfall point. Although the project is designed to eliminate scouring, the Department has included a condition in the permit, which requires Respondent, Jeff Dyson, to correct scouring, shoaling, or other alterations of the downstream portion of the drainage way. The flooding to the upstream property owner can be minimized by lowering the level of the swale in the front of the project to create an emergency spillway. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the water quality will not be adversely effected, and the proposal will not increase the volume of water. The project will not adversely effect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The ditch does not contain any fish or wildlife. The subdivision in which the project is located is almost completely built out. Therefore, there are no endangered or threatened species living in the area. The project will not adversely effect navigation or the flow of waters and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will not adversely effect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. There are no fishing or marine recreational values associated with drainage ditches. The project will be permanent in nature. The project will not adversely effect significant historical or archeological resources. The current function of the ditch is to convey storm water to the St. John's River. This function will be effected as indicated above because the proposed project constitutes a dam with a 15-inch outfall. If the 15-inch culvert is incapable of carrying the storm waters introduced into the ditch west of the proposed project, the storm water impounded by the proposed project will flood the property west of the project to the level of the highest point of the swale in the front of the project. By redesigning this swale to have a maximum elevation of ten feet or less feet, the flooding will be retained within the approximate elevations of the existing ditch. In addition, steps can be taken to minimize the potential hazzard to children caught in the ditch. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this project. Except as noted above, the applicant provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest, as defined by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. The Department uses a balancing test, which consists of taking the public-interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of a specific project. The ultimate question is whether the proposed project is contrary to the public interest. The Department believed that it was not contrary to the public interest. Based upon the evidence presented, the project has two adverse impacts, as indicated in Paragraphs 16 & 27. However, these can be eliminated or minimized to an acceptable level by the modifications recommended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department approve issuance of the permit with the added conditions that the swale and driveway at the front of the proposed project not exceed an elevation of ten feet and that the culvert be constructed to protect children from being pulled into the intake. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeff Dyson 395 Corporate Way Orange Park, Florida 32065 Michael S. McGurk 297 Riverwood Drive Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynette Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Al Potter 905 North Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners, gave notice of a new storm water discharge to the Department for the proposed replacement of a 42" diameter storm water pipe with one 48" in diameter. Notice was given in letters, telephone calls and personnel meetings between representatives of Okaloosa County and the Department. Upon investigation of the project, the Department determined that the project would not significantly enlarge the storm water discharge system, nor enlarge the watershed which the system now drains. The Department also determined that the addition of an energy dissipater, a structure not now present at the discharge end of the pipe, would improve the performance of the discharge system by limiting the velocity of the storm water discharge to 2.3 feet per second. The Department determined that the new storm water discharge would not have a significant adverse impact on the water quality or designated uses of Gap Creek. On May 6, 1980, the Department issued to Okaloosa County a letter of intent to exempt the project from storm water licensing requirements. The Department considered the following in reaching its conclusion that the replacement of the existing pipe would not significantly affect water quality or designated usage: The use of an energy dissipater structure designed to limit the discharge velocity into Gap Creek to a maximum of 2.3 feet per second. The placing of sod around all storm water inlets associated with the pipe replacement to prevent the continued entry of sand into the system; and The pipe replacement and addition of the energy dissipater will not result in a significant enlargement of the existing storm water discharge system, nor otherwise result in the drainage of a larger area. The replacement of the drainage pipe by the county will not add to the amount of water entering Gap Creek, or significantly affect the quality of water in the Creek. Presently, storm water runoff travels within a county-owned drainage ditch and overflows at the point where the county intends to replace the existing 42" pipe. The present pipe is not capable of handling the amount of runoff in the ditch and this results in water overflowing the drainage ditch at the mouth of the pipe and traveling by natural contour to Gap Creek. The 48" replacement pipe and energy dissipater will allow a greater volume of water to remain in the drainage ditch and divert its flow away from the front and back yards of some Gap Creek residents.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, granting the applicant, Okaloosa County, an exemption from storm water licensing requirements for the installation of a 48" storm water pipe to replace an existing smaller pipe that enters into Gap Creek. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1981.
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
