Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan was adopted on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 11, 1989. In 2000, the County amended its Plan by establishing a Managed Growth Tier System, which includes five classifications of land (Urban/ Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades), along with three classes of service areas within the County to guide delivery of public services: Urban Area, Limited Urban Service Area, and Rural Service Area (RSA). It also assigned different levels of service for potable water and wastewater for each service area. At the same time, the County amended its FLUE to add a new Policy 3.4-c, which provides as follows: The County shall neither provide nor subsidize the provision of centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the Rural Service Area, unless urban levels of service are required to correct an existing problem, prevent a projected public health hazard or prevent significant environmental degradation, or the areas meet the criteria described in Future Land Use Policy 3.4.b. The County intended Policy 3.4-c to implement the Managed Growth Tier System by limiting the provision of centralized utility service in the Rural Tier. The effect of this new policy was to prohibit the County from providing urban levels of utility services outside its existing service area boundaries in the RSA unless necessary to correct or prevent a public health hazard, existing problem related to urban levels of service, or environmental degradation. In February or March 2003, the County Planning Department began assessing ways to address the problem of overlapping utility service in the RSA. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature passed the Scripps Law (Chapter 2003- 420, Laws of Florida), which took effect on November 3, 2003. Both of these factors led to the development of the Amendments in issue here. In late 2003, the County staff began the actual development of new amendments to its Plan (also known as Round 04-1 Plan Amendments) that would allow the County to provide services into the RSA. More specifically, the staff proposed to add a new FLUE Policy 3.1, which (as finally drafted) read as follows: The Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall provide potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater service to all unincorporated areas of the County except those unincorporated areas where the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners has entered or enters into a written agreement that provides utility service area rights to a public or privately owned potable water, reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility, or in areas where the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department is specifically excluded from providing utility service by Florida law. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall continue to provide utility services to incorporated areas where service is already being provided by the County, or as provided for under utility service area agreements or as allowed for by law. In general terms, the new policy designated the County as a service provider of water and wastewater services for unincorporated areas of the County where the County has, or will enter into, interlocal agreements except where excluded by interlocal agreement or by law. The effect of the amendment is to allow the County to extend potable water and wastewater services to unincorporated areas of the County, particularly "the western communities," where it currently does not do so. The County staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c, described in Finding of Fact 1, which was previously adopted in 2000. Finally, the County staff proposed to delete another policy adopted in 2000, CAI Policy 1.5-c, which read as follows: Urban levels of service shall not be provided by any governmental entity (outside of its existing service area boundary) within the Rural Service Area of the unincorporated area, except where: The Rural Service Area receives urban services pursuant to Objective 1.1 in the Element, or An urban level of service is required to correct a demonstrated public health, or Development on a parcel in the Rural Tier that is adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 shall be allowed to connect to those existing lines and shall be allowed to connect to public sewer and/or water when required by the Public Health Department. This policy shall not allow the extension of new water and/or sewer lines into the Rural Tier to serve development without first amending the Service Area Map and the Future Land Use Atlas to reflect a change in the service area boundary. By deleting these two provisions, the County would no longer be prevented from providing utility services in the RSA unless certain conditions were met. (The staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 1.4-k, but that deletion is not in issue in these proceedings.) On January 14, 2004, the County initiated the adoption process by transmitting Notice of the Amendments to the Intergovernmental Plan and Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), which is made up of all the local governments and special districts in the County, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. IPARC acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC in turn distributed the notice to its members, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. After a public hearing on March 12, 2004, before the County's Local Planning Agency (known as the Land Use Advisory Board), by an 11-0 vote it recommended denial of Round 04-1 Plan Amendments and recommended that the County meet with the affected parties to resolve problems voiced by various attendees, including the City, SID, and ITID. On April 2, 2004, the County held a meeting with interested persons in an attempt to resolve objections to the Amendments before they were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The objections were not resolved. On April 5, 2004, by a 5-0 vote, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the Amendments to the Department, other commenting agencies, and each unit of local government or governmental agency that had filed a written request for copies of the Amendments. The Amendments were transmitted to the Department on April 15, 2004. Between January 2004 and August 2004, the County held at least 37 meetings with utilities and other interested persons to discuss the Amendments, including three meetings with the City, at least five meetings with SID, at least ten meetings with ITID, and at least two meetings with Wellington. In addition, the County invited all utilities to attend meetings on April 28, 2004, at three locations to discuss utility service area boundaries. These meetings were attended by approximately 25 different utilities, including the City, SID, ITID, and Wellington. As a result of these meetings, the County prepared and distributed utility service area maps in an attempt to demonstrate the necessity for better coordination between utilities. On May 21, 2004, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council notified the County of no objection or comments regarding the Amendments. On June 19, 2004, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which did not identify any objections, recommendations, or comments with respect to the Amendments. On June 22, 2004, the South Florida Water Management District (District) notified the Department of no objections or comments regarding the Amendments. After a public meeting on August 24, 2004, by a 5-1 vote, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2004-26 enacting the Amendments, and they were transmitted to the Department on September 14, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the Department issued its Notice determining the Amendments were in compliance. On November 19, 2004, Petitioners (except Wellington) filed Petitions challenging the Amendments. Wellington filed its Amended Petition on December 16, 2004. The Parties and Their Standing The City is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County, operating its own water and wastewater utility system. The City owns the largest water treatment plant in the County and has an extensive wastewater treatment system, including partial ownership in the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facilty, the largest wastewater plant in the County. It owns property and currently provides bulk service to entities located within the unincorporated area of the County, including ITID. It submitted written objections to the County during the adoption process and has standing to bring this action. SID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1970. It lies within the unincorporated area of the County and has the authority to provide water and wastewater service within and without its boundaries. At present, SID provides potable water service within and without its boundaries, but only provides wastewater service within its boundaries. SID owns property in the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. These facts establish that SID has standing as an affected person to challenge the Amendments. Callery-Judge is a limited partnership, which owns and operates citrus groves on property located within the unincorporated area. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. Callery-Judge is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. Mr. Roberts owns property in the unincorporated area, including Callery-Judge, of which he is the General Manager. He submitted objections to the Amendments during the adoption process and is an affected person. ITID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957. (In 2002, the Legislature amended and reenacted ITID's enabling legislation.) In 1998, ITID began operating a water and wastewater system within the unincorporated area. ITID does not generate its own potable water or treat its wastewater. It obtains bulk water from the City and SID and bulk wastewater service from the City. ITID owns property within the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, it is an affected person within the meaning of the law. Wellington is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County and operates a utility providing water and wastewater service within its boundaries and outside to several developments. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption of the Amendments. Because Wellington does not own property or operate a business within the unincorporated area of the County, in order to demonstrate standing, it must show that the Amendments will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within its jurisdiction. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Wellington bases its standing on alleged increases in traffic and the use of parks within its boundaries, which purportedly will occur as a result of the Amendments. While Wellington could not give a precise amount (in terms of dollars) of those impacts, the testimony of its Director of Community Services established that the availability of centralized water and sewer services in the areas adjoining Wellington will arguably lead to higher density development patterns, which in turn will lead to an increased need for publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Wellington is an affected person and has standing to challenge the Amendments. The Department is the state planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing and approving comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, including the Amendments. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 people, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. The Current Plan As noted above, the County initially adopted its current Plan on August 31, 1989, by Ordinance No. 89-17. The Plan has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption. The original 1989 Plan and all subsequent amendments up to the ones at issue in this proceeding have been found in compliance by the Department. The current Plan is made up of sixteen elements, nine of which are mandatory, and seven of which are optional. The parties have indicated that the Utilities Element, CIE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and FLUE are relevant to this controversy; therefore, a brief description of their content and purpose is necessary. The purpose of a Utilities Element is to provide necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element contains potable water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste sub- elements. The aquifer recharge sub-element is found in the Coastal Management Element. The Utilities Element and the aquifer recharge sub-element of the Coastal Management Element constitute the "general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element" referenced in Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element has been found in compliance with applicable provisions of statute and rule. Section 163.3177(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.016 contain requirements for the capital improvements element of a comprehensive plan. The existing CIE complies with these requirements. Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7-a describe how the County implements the CIE. Pursuant to these requirements, the CIE is updated annually at the same time as the County budget. Table 10 of the CIE reflects the water utilities revenue and expenditures for the then current budget year and five years into the future. Table 10 was not updated when the Amendments were adopted because any future changes to the County's capital expenditures resulting from the Amendments would be made through the annual budget update process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains provisions encouraging coordination between the County and adjoining municipalities and special districts in order to more efficiently meet the needs of the County residents. (There are more than 25 municipalities and special districts within the County.) This Element has previously been found in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. One of the coordination tools identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is the IPARC, described in Finding of Fact 5, which acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC distributes notice of plan amendments to all members, who then have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed action. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006 contain requirements for the future land use element of a comprehensive plan, including the future land use map (FLUM). According to the Plan, the FLUE "is the nucleus of the . . . Plan" and "defines the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships between land use and all of the other elements of the Plan that address the physical, social, and economic needs of the people who live, work, and visit Palm Beach County." Both the existing FLUE and the current FLUM have been found in compliance. The Amendments do not alter the FLUM, but they do change FLUE Policy 3.1-c and delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c. As noted above, in 2000 the County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System, which is a planning tool intended to manage growth and protect varying lifestyles in the County. The Managed Growth Tier System consists of five categories or tiers, which are described in Objective 1.1 of the Plan. Objectives 1.2 through 1.6 govern development within the five tiers. FLUE Table 2.1-1 establishes permitted densities for each of the tiers. The Amendments do not modify any Goals, Objectives, or Policies governing the five tiers, with the exception of FLUE Policy 1.4-k. However, Petitioners have not challenged the proposed deletion of FLUE Policy 1.4-k and it is not one of the Amendments at issue in this proceeding. Additionally, the Amendments will not alter the permitted densities for any of the tiers. Concurrency Management refers to the system adopted in the CIE to ensure that infrastructure, which meets or exceeds the established minimum level of service standards, is in place concurrent with development approval. According to FLUE Policy 3.5-a, development orders and permits shall not be approved unless services and facilities meet or exceed the minimum levels of service. FLUE Objective 3.1 establishes three graduated service areas in Palm Beach County -- the Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas. Each service area corresponds to one or more of the five tiers. The minimum levels of service required for each area are listed in FLUE Table 3.1-1. According to FLUE Table 3.1-1, FLUE Policy 3.5-a, and Utilities Element Policies 1.2-g and 1.3-e, the minimum levels of service in the RSA for potable water and sewage are on-site wells and septic tanks, respectively. With the exception of water and sewer, the other minimum levels of service are the same for all three service areas. The Amendments do not alter the minimum levels of service for any service area. Through its planning expert, Wellington contended that the Amendments will cause a de facto change to the minimum levels of service. However, the extension of centralized water and sewer service into the RSA does not change the established minimum levels of service. Petitioners also argue that the Amendments will increase minimum levels of service in the RSA for traffic and parks. However, the minimum levels established in FLUE Table 3.1-1 for all services and facilities, other than potable water and sanitary service, are County-wide standards. Reasons for Adopting the Plan Amendments Policy 3.4-c did not have its intended effect because it prevented the County from providing service to the Rural Tier. After 2000, repeated efforts by the County to negotiate the service areas of the numerous entities operating utility services in the unincorporated area were unsuccessful. Indeed, "there was not a willingness of many utility providers to agree on anything." This created a lack of coordination and planning as to the provision of services in the Rural Tier. The City, SID, and ITID each have utility service areas which overlap the service area of other utility providers. In particular, portions of the Acreage, a community located in the central-western unincorporated area of the County, fall under the claimed utility jurisdiction of SID, ITID, Cypress Grove Community Development District, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Royal Palm Beach). The City is also rapidly expanding service in the unincorporated area by entering into bulk water service agreements with a number of utilities located in the Rural Tier, including Royal Palm Beach, Seacoast Utilities Authority, and ITID. The City intends further expansion of bulk service in the Rural Tier, so as to increase utility revenues. It views the Amendments as affecting its substantial interests by potentially limiting these revenues. Royal Palm Beach claims an exclusive utility service area which overlaps the utility service areas claimed by SID and ITID. Royal Palm Beach is located entirely within the legislative boundaries of ITID and claims all of ITID as its service area. The Amendments support the authority granted to the County by the Scripps Law. That law gives the County the exclusive right to provide water and wastewater service to the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility and to construct utility facilities within and without the boundaries of the Scripps project. The enactment of the Scripps Law reinforced the need for the Amendments, as the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility will be located in the unincorporated area. Existing FLUE Policy 3.4-c is arguably inconsistent with the Scripps Law because it prevents the County from providing utility service in the RSA. Since the Scripps Law supersedes all other contrary provisions of Florida Law, it logically follows that FLUE Policy 3.4-c should be repealed. The Amendments are also supported by the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances Sections 27-16 through 27-22, which codify County ordinances that were adopted in the 1970s and deal with utility service. These ordinances authorize the County to designate a Control Area in the unincorporated area and to require County approval of any water and wastewater facilities constructed in these areas. In summary, the County adopted the Amendments to avoid service area disputes between utility providers such as those described above, to prevent wasteful and duplicative utility services, to implement the Legislature’s mandate regarding the Scripps Biotechnology Park, to ensure a sufficient water supply to meet the reasonable development needs of the unincorporated area, and to enforce the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances. Petitioners' Objections Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the only data and analyses submitted by the County to support the Amendments are contained in a rather brief County Staff Report (Petitioners' Exhibit 5), and that no other documentation was actually forwarded to the Department. They further contend that the Amendments must be based on demographic, economic, and fiscal studies, and that none were utilized by the County. Because of these omissions, they argue that the Amendments violate relevant statute and rule provisions and are not in compliance. Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) require that plan amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element. In determining whether a plan amendment complies with this requirement, the Department reviews each amendment on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it does not require the same amount or type of data for all plan amendments. See, e.g., Zemel et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case No. 90-7793 (DOAH Dec. 16, 1992, DCA June 22, 1993)(projections of aquifer thickness and transmissivity do not require the same precision as calculating volume-to- capacity ratios for levels of service on road segments); 1000 Friends of Florida et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM, 2005 WL 995004 at *15 (DOAH April 28, 2005, DCA May 9, 2005)("a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal- based and aspirational"). For example, if amendments merely represent a policy or directional change and depend on future activities and assessments (i.e., further analyses and decision-making by the local government), the Department does not require the degree of data and analyses that other amendments require. (These amendments have sometimes been referred to as aspirational amendments. See Collier County v. City of Naples et al., DOAH Case No. 04-1048GM, 2004 WL 1909265 at *5 and *6 (DOAH Aug. 24, 2004, DCA Dec. 28, 2004)). Conversely, amendments which are mandatory in nature, that is, amendments which are required to be implemented by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, require more data and analyses. Thus, under Department interpretations of the relevant statutory and rule provisions, if an amendment does not have an immediate impact on the provision of services in the unincorporated area, is policy- based, does not require any capital improvement expenditures at the time the amendment is adopted, and simply represents a directional change in the County's long-term water utility planning, it is similar to an aspirational amendment and can be based on less data and analyses than might otherwise be required. Here, the County’s actual policy regarding utility service areas will depend on future activities and assessments. The Amendments do not require the County to take any immediate action. The Amendments do not mandate that existing utility customers in the RSA switch to the County. The Amendments do not authorize any new development in the Rural Tier, and any future development would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the normal development approval process. Therefore, the Amendments are akin to an aspirational amendment and do not require the degree of data and analyses that are required for other amendments. The County Staff Report identifies, albeit in brief fashion, data and analyses in support of the Amendments. It provides, among other things, that the Amendments are necessary because "[t]he lack of County participation as a service provider has created a void in effective long-term utility planning, resulting in duplicative service lines, inefficient services in the RSA, overlapping utility jurisdictions and, absence of some written agreements defining service areas." The Staff Report further identifies the County’s authority to provide service and the necessity for the Amendments to allow the County to provide service to the Biotechnology Research Park in northwest Palm Beach County. In addition, a number of documents presented at hearing provide data and analyses in support of the Amendments. In considering these documents, the undersigned notes that all data or analysis available and existing at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment may be relied upon to support an amendment in a de novo proceeding and may be raised or discussed for the first time at the administrative hearing. Zemel, supra; McSherry et al. v. Alachua County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM, 2004 WL 2368828 at *54 (DOAH Oct. 18, 2004, DCA May 2, 2005); Melzer et al. v. Martin County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 02-1014GM and 02-1015GM, 2003 WL 2150756 at *33 (DOAH July 1, 2003, DCA Sept. 26, 2003 and Oct. 24, 2003). The District's Districtwide Water Supply Assessment identifies future potable water demands for various utilities in the County. The District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan describes the available raw water supply to meet future demands in the County. The District's CUP-CERP (Consumptive Use Permit-Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Guiding Principles lists interim water use permitting guidelines, which indicate utilities may experience problems obtaining permitted allocations beyond what is needed to meet their 2005 demands. District Water Use Permit 50- 00135-W is the County's 20-year water use permit, which confirms that the County is the only utility in the unincorporated area with a guaranteed, long-term potable water allocation. The information contained in these documents confirms the County's ability to act as the default water utility provider in the unincorporated area. The County Linking Land Use and Water Supply Plan, Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan, Raw Water Master Plan, 20-Year Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and Projected Yearly Capital Expenditures each provide data and analysis, which support the County's ability to serve as the default utility provider in the unincorporated area. As a water management district study, the District's documents are professionally accepted sources, which constitute appropriate data and analyses under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c). Similarly, the County's reports constitute existing technical studies, which are also appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners contend that the County was required to collect new data and prepare a comparative analysis of the County Water Utilities Department and other utility providers in the unincorporated area. However, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b), local governments are not required to collect new data in support of a plan amendment. Further, neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) nor Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires a comparative analysis. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments are supported by relevant and adequate data and analyses. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioners also contend that in order to comply with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan, the County must inventory and analyze the facilities and services provided by other utility providers in the areas affected by the Amendments. In other words, they contend that without data and analysis relative to other providers, the coordination function is incapable of being done and is meaningless and renders the Amendments inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. (That rule sets forth in detail the data requirements upon which the element in a local government's comprehensive plan must be based, and the goal statements, specific objectives, and policies which must be found in the element.) Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 set forth requirements for the intergovernmental coordination element of a comprehensive plan. The existing Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been found to be in compliance. The Amendments do not modify this element. Although not required for purposes of compliance, the County followed intergovernmental coordination procedures in the comprehensive plan when adopting the Amendments. The Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by member governments prior to their consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The County met with other utility providers and interested persons no less than 37 times to discuss the Amendments. Further, Petitioners' own witnesses concede that their representatives attended multiple meetings with the County regarding the Amendments. Such efforts demonstrate that the County substantively complied with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners' contention that these meetings were not conducted in good faith has been rejected. Petitioners implicitly suggest that intergovernmental coordination means acquiescing to the position of an objector. If this were true, adjacent local governments would have veto power over the County's ability to enact plan amendments, a result not contemplated by the statute. The intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 do not require that local governments resolve all disputes regarding a comprehensive plan and its amendments to the satisfaction of all interested persons, but only that the local government take into consideration input from interested persons. See, e.g., Department of Community Affairs et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-1843GM and 90-7792GM, 1990 WL 749359 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1993, Admin. Comm. Feb. 10, 1994). The numerous meetings held by the County demonstrate adequate consideration of opposing views. It is at least fairly debatable that the County satisfied the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. Economic Feasibility/Comparative Analysis Petitioners argue that the Amendments fail to comply with Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible." Petitioners claim that in order to establish economic feasibility, the County first should have conducted a comparative economic analysis of the cost of utility service in the unincorporated area by various existing and hypothetical service providers. However, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Department's interpretation. The Department does not interpret the economic feasibility requirement of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, as requiring such a comparison. Instead, it construes the statute as only requiring that a plan amendment be realizable in financial terms, that is, that the local government has the financial ability to achieve what is specified in the amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 5182GM, 1995 WL 1052797 *6 (DOAH April 19, 1995, Admin. Comm. Sept. 4, 1998)("Economic feasibility means plans should be realizable in financial terms."). Compare Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District et al. v. Charlotte County et al., 774 So. 2d 903, 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the Court interpreted the use of the term "economically feasible" in a proposed Basis of Review provision as meaning "financially feasible or financially 'doable' . . . [and the] financial ability of a WUP applicant to institute reuse." The Department's interpretation of the statute was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. The evidence shows that the Amendments are financially realizable. The County Water Utilities Department is one of the financially strongest utilities in the nation. It has the highest municipal bond rating (AAA) granted by the three major rating agencies. As of August 24, 2004, no other utility in the State of Florida had achieved an AAA rating from the three bond rating agencies, and the County Water Utilities Department is among only a handful of utilities nationwide to have achieved that status. Petitioners have acknowledged that the County is a very strong utility from a financial perspective. Given the County's strong financial state, it is qualified and able to serve as the default provider in the unincorporated area. In summary, it is fairly debatable that the Amendments are economically feasible as the term is used in Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, because the County has the financial ability to extend utility service to the unincorporated area. Urban sprawl Wellington (but not the other Petitioners) essentially contends that the Amendments will promote urban sprawl because the County will now allow new urban services (water and wastewater) into undeveloped areas thereby resulting in urban development. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5) contains standards discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Existing provisions in the Plan, including the Managed Growth Tier System, prevent urban sprawl within the County. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) provides in part that "if a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find that plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction." The Amendments do not affect existing growth management provisions in the Plan and thus will not exacerbate urban sprawl. Although not required, the amendment of FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which Petitioners did not challenge, will also have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to urban sprawl. At the same time, the Amendments do not directly or indirectly authorize new development and are only aspirational in nature. Any extension of water and sewer lines into the unincorporated area does not necessarily create urban sprawl because development is not automatically authorized by these activities. Even Wellington's planning expert concurred that urban sprawl is not caused by the provision of utility services, but by the Board of County Commissioners' approval of development orders. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments will not encourage urban sprawl in contravention of the Plan.2 Internal consistency Petitioners next contend that the Amendments fail to comply with Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(10)(a), and 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which require that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. In addressing this objection, only those inconsistencies expressly alleged in their Petitions and Amended Petition will be considered. See, e.g., Heartland Environmental Council v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 WL 1059751 at *19 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996). Future Land Use Element Petitioners first contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1, and Policies 3.1-a and 3.1-b of the FLUE. These provisions require that the County "define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner"; that the County establish graduated service areas "to distinguish the levels and types of services needed within a Tier, consistent with the characteristics of the Tier," which include "the need to provide cost effective services"; that the County establish Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas based on several factors in Table 3.1.1, including "[t]he cost and feasibility of extending services"; and that the County review minimum levels of service "during preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] and the Comprehensive Plan as amended." The latter provision also requires that each service provider determine the maximum and available capacity of their facilities and services for this review. The first broad goal is implemented through the County's existing Managed Growth Tier System and is not affected by the identity of the utility provider. Also, the Amendments do not alter the Managed Growth Tier System, nor do they alter the existing minimum levels of service required for the RSA. Similarly, FLUE Objective 3.1 is not affected, as the Amendments only have the potential to change the utility provider in certain areas, and not the level of service provided within the RSA. Further, the Amendments do not change the existing service area boundaries and established service area definitions. As to Policy 3.1-a, the service areas have been established and found in compliance and the Amendments do not alter the service area designations or Table 3.1-1. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 3.1-a. Finally, Policy 3.1-b is not affected by the Amendments because the minimum levels of service are not altered and the Amendments are not the product of an EAR. Capital Improvements Element – Table 10 Table 10 of the CIE describes water and sewer revenues, operating revenues, federal/state grants, other revenues, bond/ loan proceeds, fund balances, total water and sewer revenues, water and sewer operating expenditures, water and sewer capital projects, annual surplus/deficit, and cumulative surplus/deficit for fiscal years 2004-2009. Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with this provision because the Table has not been amended to reflect the expenditures that will be made by the County as a result of the Amendments. This Table is not affected because the Amendments do not require any changes to the County's capital expenditures. If changes do occur as a result of the County's planned extension of utility service into the unincorporated area, the capital improvements associated with extension of service will be addressed in subsequent annual updates of Table 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 1 and Objective 1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which require the County to "provide a continuous coordination effort with all affected governmental entities" and to "utilize existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts with the plans of school boards, other units of local government providing services, adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, the State, and residents of Palm Beach County." Petitioners essentially claim that the Amendments were adopted and transmitted without coordination with other local governments, as required by the goal and policy. As explained above, the evidence shows that the Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by each of the local governments and special districts located in the County, these entities were given ample opportunity to comment or object to the Amendments, and the County utilized existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with these portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners also contend that the Amendments conflict with Goal 4, Policy 4.1-a, and Policy 4.1-b of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The broad goal relates to coordination of "service provision to assure the most effective and efficient service delivery for the residents of Palm Beach County and its municipalities," while the two policies require that the County coordinate with special taxing districts and each municipality within the County during "the concurrency management and development review processes" and in defining the "ultimate boundaries of that entity's sewer and water service areas." The Amendments are consistent with the goal because their purpose is to create more effective and efficient service delivery by encouraging utility providers to enter into agreements which establish exclusive service areas and eliminate overlapping service areas. For similar reasons, the Amendments are consistent with Policy 4.1-a because the County coordinated with each of the special taxing districts through IPARC and numerous subsequent meetings relating to the Amendments. Finally, the main purpose of the Amendments is to prevent overlapping utility service areas and to encourage utility providers to enter into agreements defining service areas. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 4.1- b. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Plan Petitioners next allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 8.1, Regional Strategy 8.1.1, and Regional Policies 8.1.1.3 and 8.1.1.4 of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan (Regional Policy Plan). In order for a plan amendment to be consistent with a regional policy plan, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that plan amendments be consistent with the regional plan "as a whole," and that no specific goal or policy be "applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans." Because the Petitions and Amended Petition do not allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan as a whole, their challenge must necessarily fail. See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra at *38. Even if a provision in the Regional Policy Plan could be viewed in isolation, the Amendments are consistent with Regional Goal Regional Goal 8.1, which requires "public facilities which provide a high quality of life." Nothing in the Amendments would impair the provision of a high quality of life. One of the purposes of the Amendment is to more efficiently provide utility service by defining service areas and improving the provision of services. Regional Strategy 8.1.1 relates to the provision of "levels of public service necessary to achieve a high quality of life cost-effectively." The Amendments are not inconsistent with this strategy, as they are designed to help the County implement the existing objectives and policies relating to this strategy. The purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.3 is to "encourage patterns of development which minimize the public cost of providing service, maximize use of existing service systems and facilities and take into full consideration environmental/ physical limitations." As stated above, one purpose of the Amendments is to provide more efficient and cost-effective utility service by encouraging providers to enter into agreements that prevent overlapping service areas and avoid duplication of services. Finally, the purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.4 is to "develop local Capital Improvement Programs which maximize development of existing systems before allocating funds to support new public facilities in undeveloped areas." Because the Amendments do not alter the County's Capital Improvement Programs, they do not implicate this policy. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners further allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Like regional policy plans, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that for purposes of determining consistency, the state plan is to be construed as a whole, with no specific goal or policy applied in isolation from the other goals and policies. If a plan appears to violate a provision of the state plan, a balanced consideration must be given to all other provisions of both the state and local plan to determine whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with the state plan. Petitioners have not alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as a whole. Therefore, their challenge to the Amendments must necessarily fail. See 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra; Heartland Environmental Council, supra. Assuming that a provision within the state comprehensive plan can be viewed alone, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Petitioners contend that because the Amendments fail to protect the public facilities that already exist in the unincorporated area of the County, the Amendments conflict with this goal. The Amendments are not inconsistent with this goal because their purpose is to implement the Plan provisions in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(17)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioners also allege that the Amendments contradict the requirements of Section 187.201(20)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with cooperation between levels of government, elimination of needless duplication, and promotion of cooperation. Again, the purpose of the Amendments is to eliminate duplication and promote cooperation between entities by encouraging utility providers to enter into interlocal agreements with the County that define exclusive service areas and prevent duplication of services. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes. Other Objections Finally, any other contentions raised in the Petitions and Amended Petition not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, 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 18th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Existing Conditions Between 1952 and 1957 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Florida Central and Southern Flood Control District (the forerunner of SFWMD) constructed a chain of levees, L-1, L-2, L-3 and later L-4 in eastern Hendry County, Florida. These levees which begin approximately 10 miles to the southwest of Lake Okeechobee run first east, then south and then east again for a distance of approximately 38 miles. The purpose of these levees is to shield the land5/ to the east of them from the natural sheet flow of water which comes from the west during the area's rainy season. The EAA which is protected from natural flooding consist of rich muck soils which have been successfully exploited for years by sugar cane farming. The present levees were created by excavating a "borrow" canal parallel to the southern and western sides of L-1, 2, 3 and 4. The borrow canal is no larger than was required to provide sufficient material for construction of the levees; nevertheless, the canal has a considerable water carrying capacity in the amount of 1,260 CFS 6/ at peak flow. The canal is a navigable fresh water of the state. It interconnects into other navigable canals which terminate in either Lake Okeechobee or the Miami River. The water carried by the borrow canal flows south and discharges into the Miami canal via either a pumping station designated S-8, or via the borrow canal next to L-28.7/ The water which enters the Miami canal ultimately travels to canal C-60 and then into the section of WCA-3 south of Alligator Alley (State Road 84). Flooding The rain water which once moved from west to east directly across the eastern portion of Hendry County, Florida into the EAA is now interdicted by L- 1, 2 and 3. As a result it ponds in the corner of the intersection of L-1 and L-2 (known in these proceedings as the L-1 angle). The area flooded is grass land used by Hendry County ranchers for the open grazing of beef cattle. Some of the pasture is improved, that is fertilized, but the majority of the area is unimproved range. During flood times the ranchers move their cattle to alternative pastures either to the north or to the west. The deepest flooding, when it occurs, is immediately next to the levees in the L-1 angle. The flooding has been known to reach depths as great as 10 feet and to extend westward for several miles. Because the land to the west of the L-1 angle is higher, the depth of the flooding decreases in a westerly direction. The duration of the ponding immediately in the L-1 angle has been as long as 80 days after a prolonged and heavy rainfall event. This flooding occurs despite the capacity of the borrow canal to remove 0.18 inch of flood water per day from the inundated area. When there is flooding in the L-1 angle there is also high water In the northeast corner of WCA-3A where some of the water from the borrow canal is presently discharged. During a dry season the land immediately adjacent to the present borrow canal suffers overdraining due to seepage of ground water into the canal and its resulting evaporation or conveyance south. Water Conservation Area 3A is part of a series of conservation areas established as their name implies to conserve water. Extending over portions of several South Florida counties including Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, they provide the recharge source for the Biscayne Aquifer and other aquifers which are the water supply for metropolitan South Florida. The water conservation areas are also wildlife refuges and provide natural habitats for numerous South Florida animals such as deer, alligator, and wading birds. Description of Project The Hendry County plan as described by the Corps in General Design Memorandum No. 2, 8/ envisions the construction of a flood control canal, C- 139, with two water flow control structures, S-239 and S-243. To create C-139, the Corps plans to further excavate the existing borrow canal next to L-2, L-3 and L-4 for a total distance of 37 miles. See Illustration I.* This excavation will result in the removal of 5.2 million cubic yards of earth and limestone. Some of the resulting spoil will be used to create a levee along the west side of C-139. Most of the excavation will be done by draglines on the canal banks. Upon its completion C-139 will be an immense water conveyance. At its northern end the canal will be only five feet across the bottom with a depth of 10.6 feet, but by the time the canal reaches WCA-3A it will have enlarged to a bottom width of 80 feet across and a depth of 19.5 feet. Its peak design capacity is 3,000 CFS. That is more than twice the present capacity of the existing borrow canal. Downstream from S-239 C-139 turns south to be designated C-139(S) and to gradually become increasingly shallower. This will cause a discharge pattern designed to create a sheet flow across WCA-3A. Benefits, Future Land Use It appears that when levees L-1, 2 and 3 were constructed the Corps failed to fully consider the adverse effect which would result from the impoundment of water by the new levees. According to the General Design Memorandum, Levees 1, 2, 3 and 4 were constructed in the mid 1950s to prevent flood waters originating on the then sparsely developed lands westward of the levees from contri- buting to flooding on the rich agricultural lands lying to the east of the levees. The original borrow canals were sized based on materials needed for the levee construction. The sparse economic development of the lands to the west precluded increasing the con- veyance capacity of these canals to prevent flooding on those lands. Construction of the levees and the subsequent increased de- velopment over the drainage area have aggra- vated flooding problems on the lands. Water stands on some of the land during practically the entire wet season virtually every year. As the landowners developed the land, they became increasingly vociferous about con- struction of works to alleviate the flooding for which they contend is project-induced. There is merit in their contention in that the adjacent project works adversely affected both depth and duration of flooding in the area west of Levees 1, 2 and 3. (Emphasis added) The facts presented at the instant final hearing are somewhat to the contrary, in that there was no showing of significant subsequent development west of the levees after their construction. For many decades vast family ranches have raised cattle on the mentioned lands as they continue to do today. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to now provide flood control to an approximately 261 square mile drainage basin west of the flood-causing levees.9/ With a design capacity of 3,000 CFS, C-139 can handle twice the water which drains through the present borrow canal. By way of comparison the present canal has a drainage capacity of .18 inches per day from the flooded area during a ten-year flood,10/ while C-139 has the capacity to drain .43 inches per day. This heightened discharge rate will cause land in the L-1 angle to flood less, and once flooded, to be underwater for a shorter period of time. For instance, an area which during a ten-year storm might have been submerged for 40 days prior to the construction of the project Is estimated to have an inundation period of only 10 days upon the project's completion. The significance of the reduced flooding to the landowners in the flooded area is difficult to gauge from the evidence. Because an intensification of land use would result in a lowering in the quality of the water which runs off the land and into C-139 and thence into the environmentally sensitive water conservation area,11/ the landowners supporting the project were understandably reluctant to testify that the project will allow them to use their land for more than continued cattle grazing. The testimony of Mr. Joe Hillard, a partner in Hillard Bros. of Florida, Inc., one of the larger ranches is illustrative: Q If this project, the flood control portion, were built, would your company change any of its land uses on this land that you described? A No, sir, not at all. Not with what I understand is going to be done with the project I wouldn't change anything. In response to the Hearing Officer's later inquiry, Mr. Hillard explained that the project would allow pasture land to be used for twelve months per year as opposed to the current nine months per year during a flood season. He does not anticipate grazing any more head per acre after the project. This evidence contrasted with the assumptions made by the Corps in that part of the General Design Memorandum which discusses the cost-benefit ratio of the project. The Memorandum states at p. 52: As noted previously, the existing activity within the area is predominately agricultural with major emphasis in beef cattle production. Local landowners and managers were asked to indicate the production changes they expected to make with the reduced flood hazards available under with (sic) project condi- tions. These expectations were prepared as a land use map with the basic control matrix. For the most part, these changes in land use represented more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. In some cases, existing beef pastures were expected to be replaced with sugarcane, truck crops, and citrus production. The majority of the changes were an upgrading of existing beef cattle operations. Such upgrading was affected (sic) by planting the more pro- ductive types of pasture such as clover and grass combinations, and the application of additional fertilizers and supplemental water. These expectations were assumed to exist under favorable cultivation conditions. Because of the nature of soil conditions in the project drainage basin, sandy with poor nutrient and water retention ability, it is unlikely that land use in the 261 square mile drainage basin will change significantly. As predicted by Mr. Hillard, it is likely that all the project would do is allow more grazing time on land which is now periodically flooded. Since it is not the function of this proceeding to inquire into whether the purported cost- benefit ratio of the project is accurate, no findings will be made concerning that issue. Project Permitting History The Hendry County portion of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project for flood control west of levees 1, 2 and 3 was authorized by the Congress of the United States in the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965. The Army Corps of Engineers is the actual builder of the project, but SFWMD is the local sponsor and is the Corps' agent in applying for the necessary permits from DER. The Department as the permitting agency is in a curious position here. Its Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) was responsible for the State Public Works Program through which Florida requested Congress to fund the Hendry County Project. Mr. Charles Littlejohn who was head of the Bureau in 1976 had the responsibility of lobbying in Washington for funding of the project. The DER through its Bureau of Permitting is now asked to pass on the validity of a project which the BWR has so vigorously promoted. The Department's uncomfortable posture was recognized by its permitting staff. In a memorandum dated March 9, 1979 to Mr. E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Mr. Forrest Fields at DER wrote: I told Mr. Brown, as I told you yesterday that I felt rather awkward in reviewing for permitting a project which the agency had endorsed for the public works list." Every year projects being sponsored for federal approval are reviewed by a process In the Division of State Planning called the A-95 Clearinghouse.12/ The Hendry County Project had a checkered history there. Serious objections concerning the environmental impact of the project were raised; nevertheless, DER through the BWR continued to seek and was successful in obtaining federal funding. On November 15, 1978, SFWMD filed an application with DER for the requisite permits to begin construction. During the course of DER's review of the project several issues arose between the parties. Among them were: Whether local approval pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes would be required? Would an exception from dissolved oxygen (DO) standards be necessary? Whether local water quality standards would apply if they were stricter than state standards? Local Approval As early as February 19, 1979, DER noted that plans submitted by the applicant proposed the placement of fill in waters of the state. In a letter to Mr. Lee M. Brown of SFWMD, Mr. Forrest Fields, the DER permit processor, observed: Second, on page 2/11 of your drawings, you indicated that approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material will be placed water- ward of ordinary mean high water. I pre- sume that this fill is associated with structures S-243 and S-239. Pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, approval of this filling by resolution of the local government is required. To do this I will, upon receipt of the Department of Environ- mental Regulation field report, summarize and send this to the Hendry County Commission. The Commission will have to consider this report, and, by vote, adopt a resolution approving the project. I will send you a sample resolution. The requirement of local approval was reiterated numerous times. In March, 1979, Mr. Fields sent a staff report of a biological survey of the project to the Hendry County Commission for consideration in their approval of the project. During a meeting on March 21, 1979 in the DER Secretary's office representatives of SFWMD were told that local approval would be required. On April 10, 1979 the County Commissioners of Hendry County gave their approval to the project. In correspondence to Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society, Secretary Jacob D. Varn noted that the permit applications were still incomplete because local approval for filling associated with the two water control structures had not yet been received by DER. During a public meeting held on May 22, 1979, the County Commissioners of Broward County, after three and one-half hours of testimony, voted 6-0 against approving the project as it related to fill in Broward County. Subsequent to that vote the Corps and SFWMD asserted that local approval by Broward County was not required. In response to this assertion Mr. Charles Littlejohn, on behalf of the Secretary, requested a legal opinion from DER's General Counsel. On October 30, 1979, General Counsel's Legal Opinion 79- 72 concluded that the Department could assert Chapter 253 jurisdiction over the project and therefore "local approval" is a statutory requirement for its permitting. On March 17, 1980 Mrs. Evelyn Jackman of Jackman and Sons, Inc., one of the major ranchers in the project drainage basin, wrote to Governor Graham to urge the rapid approval of the project. Her correspondence was forwarded to DER for an appropriate response. Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel as Assistant Secretary noted in her reply on April 3, 1980 that: Pursuant to Section 253.124(3), Florida Statutes approval must be obtained from the County Commissioners before we can complete the processing of a permitting application for fill in navigable waters. Approval has not been received from Broward County and there Is fill proposed for the Broward County portion of the project. Ms. Tschinkel did, however, assure Mrs. Jackman that: The Department of Environmental Regulation is sympathetic to the problems outlined in your letter, and for that reason the Depart- ment has made this project part of its public works package given each year to Congress. We still support this as a public works pro- ject and for that reason we are attempting to work out the permitting problems as ex- peditiously as possible. Shortly after Ms. Tschinkel's letter was sent there was another meeting in the Secretary's office to discuss the project. Mr. Lotspeich's interoffice memorandum outlines the Department's new position as it related to local approval. In addition, the issue of what constituted fill pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for local approval purposes was discussed. Helen Setchfield also partici- pated in this discussion. After Helen and I looked more closely at the project, it appeared that only a concrete structure (S-239) was to be placed waterward of OHW.13/ We both agreed that in past permitting practices we had not required local approval for the construction of structures waterward of OHW, but only when fill to extend existing lands or create new lands was involved. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the fill and structure relative to OHW and sheet 2 of 11 clearly indicates that fill will be placed "below MHW" Forrest must have assumed that local approval would be required if the canal was determined to be under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdic- tion. GCO-79-72 from Randie Denker indicated that the Department can assert Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdiction in the canals and therefore local approval would be required. It would appear that there was really no clear understanding as to what the "fill" consisted of in the case of structure 239. Conversation with Mr. Walker [counsel for SFWMD] and Messrs. Parsons [counsel for Alico and other landowners] and Davis [SFWMD] indicated that there was no intention to place fill in the canal waterward of OHW and that the concrete structure would span the entire canal width. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the structure and fill re- lative to existing OHW, Mr. Walker said he would provide new drawings which would show this. Helen and I discussed the situation and we scheduled an appointment to talk the problem over the (sic) Terry Cole. It was agreed at the meeting that simultaneous "intent" letters would be sent on May 5, 1980 from permitting and the exception review people. May 16, 1980 DER entered into a Stipulation with SFWMD which states in its entirety: The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION for purposes of this proceeding hereby stipulate and agree that: The DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION has jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to require permits autho- rizing construction and other activities described in the application which is the subject of this proceeding. None of the activities or construction, including the construction of the proposed Spillway S-239, as described in the appli- cation which is the subject of this pro- ceeding, constitute construction of islands or an addition to or extension of existing lands and islands so that approval of local governments as described in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, is not required. This Stipulation is executed by counsel for each party on the date shown. On May 20, 1980 coordinated letters of intent to grant permits for the construction of the project were issued. Pursuant to the Stipulation local approval was no longer being required by DER. Alternative Site Specific Criteria After receipt of SFWMD's permit application for the construction of C- 139 and associated structures, DIR noted that it did not have adequate data on dissolved oxygen. In correspondence dated March 9, 1979, Mr. Forrest Fields said: Fourth, the dissolved oxygen data are not adequate. The available data were col- lected during daylight, only, and these data include occasional concentrations of less than 4.0 mg/l. In an effort to re- solve these deficiencies so that reasonable assurances may be provided, you, Walt Dineen, and I will discuss the South Florida Water Management District data on Thursday, March 15. The results of the March 15, 1979 meeting were memorialized by Mr. Fields in a file memorandum dated March 19, 1979. The memorandum stated in pertinent part that: On March 15, 1979, Mr. Lee Brown, Mr. Walt Dineen, and Mr. Fred Davis, from SFWMD, called to discuss the staff's request for "reasonable assurance" re. the Department's water quality standards. Mr. Davis, the applicant's chief chemist, said that, throughout the Everglades, in both canals and conservation areas, the water quality standards for both conductivity and dis- solved oxygen are frequently violated. He asserted that this is typical of the area. He believes that these data represent natural background. The situation regarding affirmative, reasonable assurance appears to be this: widespread and frequent observations of DO data which are less than the minimum for Class III waters commonly occur within the existing L-1, L-2, L-3 canals. The increase in depth associated with C-139 is predicted to exacerbate existing stress- es on the DO regime.... However, the SFWMD's response does not constitute reasonable assurance re. other Class III standards. The District's DO and conductivity data may conceivably supply assurances that these standards will be violated in C-139. (Whether background DO and conductivity violate the standards may become important.) The District appears to have two alternatives: 1) attack the Class III standard; 2) apply for variances for, at least, DO and conductivity. A follow-up meeting was held on March 21, 1979. Again, in a file memorandum dated March 28, 1979 Mr. Fields wrote: Consideration of reasonable assurance began at the March 15, 1979, conversation among Messrs. Brown, Davis and Fields. According to the SFWMD, widespread and frequent violations of the Class III water quality standard for dissolved oxygen, as contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., occur throughout the Everglades, in the canals, agriculture areas, Lake Okeechobee, and the conservation areas. The existing borrow canals follow this pattern. The SFWMD alleges that this condition is natural back- ground. They agree that it is probable that any existing DO stresses exist in the borrow canal will be exacerbated in the proposed C-139. However, both the former and present editions of Chapter 17-3 F.A.C. allow for exceptions for natural background. The SFWMD will review these rules to determine which regulatory approach will be taken. In addition, the SFWMD will supply to DER data for the "benchmark" station in the L-28 canal and at Everglades National Park to demonstrate lower back- ground concentrations of DO. Furthermore, the SFWMD will apply, per Ch. 403.087, F.S., for a temporary operating permit for the completed structure. Conditions governing private connections and incor- porating BMPs may be included in the TOP. On April 5, 1979, SFWMD submitted in support of its original permit application a document called Evaluation of Natural Background Dissolved Oxygen in Conservation Area 3-A, South Florida. This evaluation received unfavorable reviews at. DER. Landon P. Ross, chief biologist, wrote in an April 9, 1979 memo that: I have reviewed the data provided by SFWMD regarding background DOs in the Everglades area and have the following comments: Indication that DOs are not harmful to local organisms are, in a legal sense, irrelevant to the question. The data provided give evidence of the occurrence of low DOs in the area. Since the measured low DOs seem to be from artificial drainage channels, they can hardly be supposed to be "natural". The measures that SFWMD provided, however, do not seem too different from the values that I would expect to find in a natural swamp habitat. The proposed "standard" cannot be logically derived from the DO measurements provided. This Evaluation was later submitted in support of first Petition for Exception noted infra. In his review of the data Mr. Fred Bartleson at DER wrote:14/ The data submitted by the South Florida Water Management District does not justify the requested exception for dissolved oxy- gen criteria for the Hendry County Project. The petition alleges that D.O. concentra- tions lower than 1.0 mg/l occur in the re- ceiving waters of Conservation Area 3A. However, the data submitted from that area indicate a minimum value of 2.3 mg/l. The value cited in the petition of less than 1.0 mg/l was recorded in the L-3 borrow canal adjacent to the conservation area. This canal drains an agricultural area. Similar data from the L-28 east canal which is less affected by cultural activity depicts minimum D.O. values between 3 - 2 mg/l. The low D.O. values found naturally in fresh- water wetlands during the warmer months ob- viously result in stress to the biota. The introduction of larger quantities of water from the proposed Hendry County Project, which is anticipated to have lower D.O. values as well as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff, could adversely affect the ecosystem. The proposed exception allowing discharge of water with not less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours in any 24-hour period is arbitrary and not supported by data. It may well be that an exception could be granted for some lowering of the D.O. criteria with time constraints. However, more defini- tive and conclusive data are required to in- sure that this action would not cause adverse effects. The burden of supplying this infor- mation should rest with the petitioner. His views were supported by Messrs. Kevin Edwards, Vernon Myers, and G. J. Thabaraj. Mr. Edwards also noted the difference in DO readings between the WCA- 3A and the borrow canals. SFWMD filed a Petition for an Exception on July 23, 1979. The Petition alleged that the receiving waters of the proposed discharge are located in WCA-3A and that due to natural causes that portion of WCA-3A which will receive the discharge does not meet the state standards for DO as set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The DO levels of the proposed discharge are alleged to be similar to those levels already present in the water conservation area. In response to the Petition DER requested more information by a letter from Stephen Fox dated August 29, 1979. The letter requested: Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of natural causes, that is, there is an absence of man-induced alteration; or Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated with technology or management practices. Data which supports the contention that the biota have not been adversely af- fected or will not be affected adversely. The data submitted with the application did not address the possibility that the low dis- solved oxygen levels may be caused by the practice of pumping water off the agriculture areas during the summer wet season. Compari- son with similar subtropical, undisturbed aquatic environment should be made. The dis- solved oxygen data should be compared with pumping schedules and with dissolved oxygen values of water pumped. Comprehensive water- shed and land use data is needed for a thorough review. Further, the data submitted did not support the contention in the petition of a corre- lation between C.A. 3A and canals L-3 and L-28. Also, the contention that in C.A. 3A dis- solved oxygen concentrations were below 1.0 mg/l were recorded was unsupported. The data array was not adequate in terms of distri- bution and frequency of sampling, to demon- strate that the dissolved oxygen regime ap- proaches the proposed alternative criteria. On October 2, 1979, E. D. Vergara summarized the status of the SFWMD application for the DER Secretary, Jacob D. Varn. His memorandum with respect to dissolved oxygen states: ... (permits) originally requested under old 17-3 rules, it was found quality assurances could not be made due to a naturally occurring condition of low DO. The Department requested information sup- portive of the low DO background, but due to differences in opinions among the biologists, the district elected to re- quest an exception under the provisions of the new 17-3 rule instead. Additional information has now been requested by the Department to support the request for an exception, and the District is cur- rently putting this together. It is the general feeling that with this additional data, granting the exception should be possible. SFWMD responded to Mr. Fox's letter above by submitting in the Spring of 1980, an Amended Petition for Exception from Criteria. In its Amended Petition the District abandoned the comparison, found in the original petition, of the proposed discharged waters' dissolved oxygen levels to the levels found in the water conservation district. Instead the District concentrated on a comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed discharge waters to the levels in the relatively clean canals in the South Florida area, specifically the L-28 canal system. The District proposed that as an alternative to Class III standards the following criterion be established: During any 24-hour cycle the dissolved oxygen concentration within the photic zone shall exceed 1.0 mg/l, except during the extreme low point when values shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours. (Emphasis added) Accompanying SFWMD's Amended Petition was a report (Supporting Report) dated February, 1980, which provided a voluminous compilation of data to justify the alternative standard proposed.15/ On April 8, 1980, Ms. Helen Setchfield sent a memorandum to DER staff requesting that they review the Amended Petition and report back to her within five days. Also on April 8, 1980, after a meeting attended by both SFWMD representatives and DER representatives, it was decided that DER would issue coordinated letters of intent on May 5, 1980 for both the exception and the dredge and fill applications. In spite of the decision to issue letters of intent, DER permitting staff were not satisfied with the concept that ban-made canals were "natural" background or that the proposed DO standard was reasonable. On April 16, 1980, Rick Lotspeich wrote to Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, that: I have reviewed the referenced "request for exception" and it appears that the petition and supporting report are suf- ficiently complete to allow evaluation of the merits of the request. It would appear that the proposed dis- solved oxygen standard of 2.0 mg/l over 24 hours and 1.0 mg/l "during the extreme low point" for not more than two hours, is excessively low and not warranted by the data presented. A review of the data from figures 4 and 5 generally indicate that the following standard would be appropriate: Dissolved Oxygen: The concentration should not average less than 4.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 mg/l except during the months of June--September, when the concentra- tion shall not average less than 3.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and never less than 1.0 mg/l. Later, after having received comments from Rick Cantrell and Bob Siciler, Mr. Lotspeich wrote to Ms. Walker the following: My recollection from reading the request for exception was that SFWMD had indeed recognized the fact that the canals and their design had contributed to the de- pressed DO values of the water in them. Pursuant to Subsection 17-3.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, there may be a consideration for "man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated I am in full agreement with Cantrell and Siciler's discussion of the adverse impacts that canals in general, and the specific canal involved in this project, have on water quality and biological resources. However, I disagree with the conclusions that they reached. Clearly, there are extenuating circumstances involved in this case which set it apart from other dredge and fill cases. In light of these circum- stances, the fact that the depressed DO levels have resulted from man-induced causes which cannot be controlled, and Cantrell and Siciler's own statement that approval of this project has little probability of worsening the existing water quality of L-2, L-3 and WCA-3, I would recommend that the exception be granted. However, the alternate DO standard which I recommended in my previous memo is still applicable. (Emphases added. The "extenuating circum- stances" were never explained.) Subsequently, on May 20, 1980, the Department issued a coordinated letter of intent to grant an exception but for the standard proposed by Mr. Lotspeich, not that requested by the Water Management District. Dissolved Oxygen and Exception Section 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code requires that discharges into fresh waters of the state must exhibit dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.04 mg/l or more. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above that level must be maintained. Dissolved oxygen in certain concentrations is required for aquatic life. The amount of oxygen contained in water is subject to numerous variables, many of which are interrelated. They include: amount of sunlight entering the water, ability of the water to transmit light, photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants, water temperature, mechanical oxygenation, mixing with other water which may have either a higher or lower dissolved oxygen content, depth of water, rate of oxygen consumption by resident biota, and time of day. It is undisputed that during certain seasons and times of day the water in the existing borrow canal does not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard. Readings as low as 0.9 mg/l have been obtained there. These low readings usually occur in the months of heavy rainfall, primarily July through September. See the data on Figure 4 of SFWMD's Supporting Report. Similar, though not so low measurements have been obtained in neighboring man-made canals such as L-28. L-28 has been used by water quality experts as a "benchmark" for canal water quality since it does not receive large amounts of runoff from agricultural areas where pollutants such as fertilizers are used. There are numerous times during a given year that the dissolved oxygen levels in L-28 are below the 5.0 mg/l state standard. It is also possible to find at least two locations in WCA-3A wetlands where dissolved oxygen readings are below Class III standards. At Gauge 3-2 in the northwest corner of WCA-3A near where the project would discharge, dissolved oxygen levels have varied from 2.3 mg/l to 10.8 mg/l; however, the mean value for the measured levels has been 5.5 mg/l as reported on Table 2 of the Supporting Report.16/ Unfortunately, the data regarding dissolved oxygen concentrations in the proposed discharge area are scant. This paucity was recognized by the Supporting Report which states at page 6: "No systematic study of the dissolved oxygen conditions or requirements for fresh water wetlands in general, or WCA-3A in particular, have yet been conducted." Despite the limited data on WCA-3A, certain comparisons between DO readings in it and in the borrow canal which would discharge into the area can be made. Readings taken at Gauge 3-2 do not sink to levels as low as those found in L-3. Compare Figure 4 of the Report to Table 2. The minimum readings taken in L-3 were during those periods of greatest discharge. If the discharge from the existing borrow canal were presently sent into the area of Gauge 3-2 during months of peak discharge, the waters entering WCA-3A would have a lower dissolved oxygen concentration than would exist naturally in the area. It is not surprising that water in the borrow canal exhibits unusually low dissolved oxygen levels. The levee sides limit reaeration which could occur due to wind movement. The surface-to-volume ratio is also unfavorable. Much oxygenation occurs at the interface between the water and surrounding air, but because the canal is relatively deep compared to its surface area, the proportion of water coming into direct contact with the air is low.17/ The depth of the photic zone, i.e., the section of water penetrated by light, is limited due to the naturally high color of canal water. Construction of C-139 will add somewhat to a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the entire canal water column. To increase its conveyance capacity, the existing borrow canal will be deepened significantly, particularly in its southern reaches. This deepening will result in a lowering of the ratio between the area of water surface to the depth of the canal. No mathematical data were presented by which the lowered ratio can be computed; however, an examination of Plates A-24 and A- 25 of the General Design Memorandum indicates that completed C-139 will contain a higher ratio of water below the photic zone than is presently contained in the borrow canal.18/ This is true only during those times when the canal is relatively full of water. As the canal level drops during a drought the photic zone will approach the canal bottom in the shallower sections. Both SFWMD and DER have proposed site specific DO alternative standards. These have been set out in the foregoing discussion of the permitting history. There is a significant difference between the proposals. SFWMD's proposal includes only the waters contained in the photic zone. It fails to recognize that during times of discharge, the waters of C-139 which are deposited in WCA-3A will not be only those of the photic zone, but will come from the entire water column of the canal. While SFWMD's standard might be acceptable for C-139 when it is in a no discharge state, the standard is completely unacceptable when the canal is discharging. Neither the standard proposed by DER nor SFWMD recognizes the difference between the dissolved oxygen regime which can be predicted for C-139 and that presently existing in WCA-3A. The data submitted would justify an exception from the present 5.0 mg/l Class III standard. There are certainly times when both the water existing in relatively unpolluted canals and in the water conservation area contain less than the present minimal content of dissolved oxygen. When C-139 is not discharging an exception, which would have a range now exhibited by the existing borrow canal, would be justified for the new canal. Sufficient data was not presented here to suggest the precise figures for such an exception. The information given for L-3 for instance, is compiled from samples taken only once during a given day. The water depth of the sample is not given. Accurate data would account for the diel variation and the effect of water depth on each sample. Without data which gives a daily average, it is impossible to determine if the water either standing in, or discharging from C- 139 will meet any proposed alternative criterion. For the same reason the data obtained for the present DO concentrations in WCA-3A is incomplete for establishing appropriate levels for discharge waters entering that area. The establishment of site specific alternative criteria must await the submission of more complete dissolved oxygen readings from the applicant. One of the elements in considering whether to grant an exception to established standards is whether the existing biota have adapted to the background DO levels. The proof here shows that the fish and other biota now living in the borrow canal either tolerate or have adapted to the present low DO regime there. It has also been proven that the biota in WCA-3A are tolerant of the naturally occurring low DO levels in that area. It was not shown how they would respond to a massive influx of low DO water when C-139 would be discharging. Hydroperiod in WCA-3A The northwest corner of WCA-3A, where C-139 and C-139(S) will discharge, has a higher ground elevation than that of the southern portion of the water conservation area. The highest elevation in the extreme northwest corner is approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It tapers down to approximately ten feet MSL at the southern boundary of WCA-3A. The project is designed to facilitate the sheet flow of discharge water from the northwest area towards the southeast with an ultimate destination being flow into the Miami canal. The construction of the Miami canal, C-123, which runs on a northwest- southeast diagonal across the area, causes overdrainage of the northwest section. The borrow canal along Alligator Alley also contributes to excess runoff. This overdrainage has shortened the hydroperiod in the northwest corner from approximately 9 to 10 months to approximately 5 to 7 months. "Hydroperiod" is the span of time during which land is inundated by ponded water. The shorten hydroperiod has a profoundly destructive impact on the natural environment. The muck soil when not submerged oxidizes at an accelerated rate. At the present time the rate of oxidation in the northwest corner is more rapid than the replacement rate. Since the natural hydroperiod has been altered muck fires have been more severe and frequent. These fires destroy existing tree islands which dot the Prior to 1974 WCA-3A received discharges from the waters of the L-1, 2 and 3 borrow canal. The outlet of the canal at L-4 was determined to be inadequate for flood control purposes in the L-1 angle. To increase the discharge rate of the borrow canal culverts G-88 and G-89 were installed at the L-3/L-4 intersection in October of 1974. G-89 directs part of the flow from the L-3 canal into canal L-28 west, and then into pumping station 5-140 and into C- 60 (parallel to Alligator Alley). G-88 directs another part of the flow from the L-3 canal into the L-4 borrow canal and then into S-8 where it is pumped into the Miami canal. Rather than being allowed to flow in a shallow sheet across the water conservation area, the direct water flow is now sent southeast in canals for ultimate discharge outside the area. This waste would be eliminated by the proposal to have C-139 discharge into WCA-3A via C-139(S). There is no dispute that more water is needed annually in the northwest corner of the water conservation area. What is at issue here is the timing of placing additional water there. Generally when there is flooding in the L-1 angle and C-139 would be discharging at its maximum rate there is already flooding in WCA-3A. Rainstorm events are somewhat regional and cover both areas. The applicant estimates that if the volume of water discharged by C-139 in a two-week period were to be instantaneously spread over the northwest corner of WCA-3A 20/ it would raise the water stage by 0.4 feet. This would occur during a one in ten year storm. At that time the wildlife in the water conservation area would already be stressed by high water levels. A 0.4 foot increase in stage could kill deer and other terrestrial animals and destroy alligator nests, but it also could benefit the more aquatic animals. The result of this increase cannot be accurately predicted on the data supplied by the applicant.21/ While expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant were willing to express an opinion that the influx of drainage water from C-139 would be beneficial, the opinions were simplistically based on the unsupported assumption that because WCA-3A currently suffers from overdrainage, any additional water at any time would be beneficial. It is possible that those opinions were based on studies conducted which prove that a discharge of water such as will come from C-139 may create a beneficial increase in the marsh hydroperiod. Unfortunately, no evidence of the existence of such studies is in this record. The applicant's expert witnesses' opinions are therefore given little weight. In the present situation WCA-3A receives some water from the borrow canal during the dry season when additional water is most beneficial. At the expense of overdraining the land west of the borrow canal, ground water seepage now enters the canal and travels south through L-1, 2 and 3. After the construction of S-239, designed to prevent overdrainage, any possible flow into WCA-3A during dry periods will be cut off. No evidence was presented on what quantity of water WCA-3A will lose during a dry season due to S-239. Also the record does not reflect what effect that reduction will have on biota in the water conservation area. S-239 and Fill When the level of water in the borrow canal drops below the nearby water table, there is groundwater seepage laterally into the canal. If C-139 were to be constructed without any water control devices, it would exacerbate the overdrainage because it will be a far more efficient conveyance than is the borrow canal. S-239 has been designed to prevent this overdrainage. The structure will be located in Broward County. On May 22, 1979 the County declined to give its approval of the use of any fill, as the term is used in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, for the construction of this project in Broward County. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not maintained a consistent unwritten policy on what is "fill" in navigable waters of the state.22/ Testimony from past and present Department employees indicated that at times a "use" concept was employed to determine what was fill. If additional dry land were created which would be used for commercial purposes, then the newly created land was called fill which required local approval. At other times use was unimportant. The test was whether or not the result of the additional material would be moving the point, at which the high water mark intersected the land, in a waterward direction. It is found that what constituted fill in past permit cases depended upon the personal interpretation of each Department employee. S-239 as proposed is a massive structure which will cost 1.32 million dollars 23/ to build. It will contain 11,000 cubic yards of fill and backfill; 530 cubic yards of 1' by 1' pieces of stone rip-rap; 1,230 cubic yards of concrete and 647,000 pounds of cement. 153,800 pounds of reinforcing steel will be required. The structure will be over 50 feet high and will span C-139 where it is 60 feet wide. Each of the two vertical lift gates which control the water flow will be 27 feet wide. See Illustration II.* In between them will be a concrete pier three feet wide and approximately 38 feet long. The cement bottom of the structure will rise from an elevation of 8.0 feet MSL to a crest of 3.3 feet MSL for a total height of 11.3 feet. In order to allow service vehicles to pass across the canal a bridge 13 feet wide will span from one bank to the other. This bridge will support large trucks. The stone protection provided for in the plans consists of 1 foot square pieces of rip-rap to be placed 40 feet immediately upstream from the control gates and 30 feet immediately downstream of the gates. The purpose of this protection is to prevent erosion of the canal bottom and sides where the water flows by at a relatively high velocity. The majority of rip-rap will be placed below the ordinary high water mark. Local Water Quality Standards The issue of local water quality standards arose late in the permitting process. DER had already issued two letters of intent to SFWMD before the Department gave consideration to standards promulgated by Broward County. It appears from the record that the Broward County standards were formally brought to DER's attention through the County's Petition for Formal Hearing filed on June 3, 1980. On June 26, 1980, DER issued an amended letter of intent which said: This letter is an amendment of the letter of intent to issue signed by the Department on May 20, 1980. In that letter, the Depart- ment stated: "This intent to issue is contin- gent upon the applicant being granted an exception from the criteria for dis- solved oxygen, for Class III waters, pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code." The preceding paragraph is hereby amended to include a provision that the applicant must obtain relief from the dissolved oxygen stan- dards that appear in Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, through a variance or other legal mechanism, in addition to the exception from state standards for dissolved oxygen. Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, states that DO is to have a "daily average not less than 5 mg/l; single reading never less than 4 mg/l. The May 20, 1980, letter also contained a paragraph that read: "However, should the Department grant an exception from the dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue the permit." This paragraph is hereby stricken and the following paragraph substituted: "If the Department grants an exception from the State dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue a conditional permit which will only become valid upon the granting of relief by Broward County from its existing local standards for dissolved oxygen." The Department is taking this position upon consideration of Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to en- force all stricter or more stringent rules, regulations or orders in the jurisdiction where they apply. It is the Department's position that it is without discretion to grant relief from Broward County's local standard for dis- solved oxygen. By its Petition the County alleged that it has an approved local pollution control program and that the proposed project will violate its local standards for dissolved oxygen and nutrients found in Sections 27-117(b)(9) and 27-117(11) of the Broward County Code.24/ Neither SFWMD nor the Corps has applied to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board for either a license under Chapter 27 of the County Code or for a variance from the standards established therein. On April 20, 1972, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (the predecessor of the Department of Environmental Regulation) gave temporary and conditional approval for six months to the Broward County Pollution Control Program. This approval provided that the County has full authority to enforce its own laws, rules and regulations, provided that they must be as strict or stricter than those of the State. The County was also required to modify its rules if the State subsequently adopted the regulations in conflict with those of the County. On November 7, 1972, the Department of Pollution Control gave Broward County full and final approval pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in 1974 and 1976 the State and Broward County entered into new agreements. These agreements were the result of DER's desire to make uniform all its agreements with all qualified local programs. The Broward County pollution control program including the portion administered by the Environmental Quality Control Board, continues to be an approved local program as defined at Section 403.182, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter an Order denying South Florida Water Management District's application for a water quality permit and for a dredge and fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982. * NOTE: Illustration I, noted in paragraph 8 and Illustration II, noted in paragraph 49 are not a part of this ACCESS document. Illustrationn II is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant is a duly authorized and registered Florida corporation engaged in the business of producing electrical power for sale. It proposes to construct and operate a 486 megawatt (gross) coal fired electrical generating facility immediately adjacent to its existing three coal fired units known a Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3. The proposed site is located on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay near the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay (designated as a Class III waterbody), and is five miles north of Ruskin, ten miles south of Tampa and fourteen miles from St. Petersburg across Tampa Bay. As noted, the proposed unit will be the fourth unit at the applicant's existing Big Bend site and will share many of the service facilities with the existing units. The shared facilities include the coal dock, loading facilities, the coal storage area, the switchyard, and the existing wastewater treatment pond and spray irrigation field. The existing transmission line towers will be used by Unit No. 4, but approximately 3,000 feet of conductors will be installed to connect the new unit to the existing switchyard located just east of the existing station. Other associated facilities include storage and handling facilities for limestone necessary to operate the flue gas desulfurization system, storage and disposal areas for the by-product produced by that system and storage and disposal for ash. A spur from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to the site was constructed for previous projects and will be used in connection with construction of proposed Unit No. 4. An additional spur will be constructed entirely within the site boundaries and no offsite rail construction will be necessary. As a primary energy source, proposed Unit No. 4 will burn high sulfur bituminous coal. The unit will be equipped with an electrostatic precipitator for the purpose of controlling the emission of particulates, and will also be equipped with a flue gas desulfurization system for the purpose of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide. These pollution control devices have been determined by the Department of Environmental Regulation to constitute the "best available control technology." In order to prevent significant deterioration of air quality from the operation of Unit No. 4, various alternative strategies have been studied by TECO and its consultants. These studies demonstrated that the most economical strategy which will comply with state and federal regulations calls for the use of a 99.74% efficient electrostatic precipitator for the removal of particulate emissions, boiler and burner design for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide and a system for the removal of sulfur dioxide which includes a flue gas desulfurization system, coal washing and retention of certain of the sulfur dioxide in the ash during combustion. The entire sulfur dioxide control system will provide a removal efficiency of 90 percent. Tampa Electric Company and its consultants have modeled and analyzed the projected effects of air pollution from proposed Unit No. 4. The evidence developed from such studies shows that the operation of Unit No. 4 as proposed pursuant to the attached conditions of certification will comply with State and federal standards for ambient air quality and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. Big Bend Unit No. 4 will generate three basic byproduct materials. These are fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas desulfurization byproduct. The fly ash generated by Unit No. 4 will be collected in the electrostatic precipitator prior to the boiler gas being discharged to the atmosphere. This material will be marketed as a raw material for the production of cement. However, in the event no market is available, provisions have been made to store fly ash at the site of Unit No. 4. The unsold fly ash will be sluiced to a settling pond and then ultimately transported to the final storage area. Bottom ash is the material resulting from combustion of coal which is collected at the bottom of the boiler. Bottom ash will be sluiced to a bottom ash area which will consist of a pond for settling the material and a final disposal area. The flue gas desulfurization system byproduct, a commercial grade gypsum, will be stored as necessary on site. It is anticipated that this will be a marketable product. Fresh water necessary to operate the facility, other than for cooling purposes, will be obtained from Hillsborough County. This fresh water will be used to supply make-up water to the boiler and in the flue gas desulfurization system. In addition, fresh water will be used to sluice ash and to service the sanitary facilities for the plant, for fire protection and for other limited miscellaneous uses. All such water will be obtained off premises and no production wells will be owned or operated by Tampa Electric Company in connection with Unit No. 4. For some purposes, the applicant will use the lowest quality of water available from the County before drawing from the public potable water supply. Proposed Unit No. 4 will utilize a once through condenser cooling system and fine mesh screens on the intake structures will be installed for existing Unit No. 3 and the proposed Unit No. 4. Saltwater for the cooling system will be withdrawn from the existing intake canal and will be returned to the existing discharge canal. The plant cooling water flow will be pumped from the intake structure screen wells through the plant and discharged to the discharge canal where the flow from Unit No. 4 will combine with the existing flow from Units 1, 2 and 3. There is sufficient water available in Tampa Bay to supply the volume requirements of the Unit No. 4 once through cooling system. The fine mesh screens installed on the intake structures for existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 will minimize the impact of entrainment and impingement on organisms in the area. A system will be provided to return organisms impinged on the fine mesh screen structures to a location suitable to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The cooling water passing through the plant will increase in temperature to an expected level of 17 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature of the ambient intake cooling water prior to ultimate discharge. This 17 degree temperature rise is the design maximum for the unit at maximum load conditions. The heated water will be discharged to the existing station discharge canal and will then flow in a westerly direction into the Bay where it will mix with ambient water and continue to reduce in temperature. Tampa Electric Company performed a 316 Demonstration in accordance with Section 316 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, to assess the impacts of the thermal discharge from the plant on organisms in the Bay. In addition, the effects of the cooling water intake structure on impingement and entrainment of organisms in the intake water were assessed. These reports were submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency for evaluation. The Department of Environmental Regulation has approved the use of a once through cooling system with fine mesh screens on the intake structures on Unit No. 3 and Unit No. 4. DER recommends establishment of a thermal mixing zone in accordance with Section 17-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, encompassing an area not to exceed 4980 acres. The conditions of certification proposed by DER require further validation of the size of the mixing zone after Unit No. 4 begins operations. The Environmental Protection Agency has tentatively determined that the use of fine mesh screen technology on existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 constitutes the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts for the purposes of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, and has also tentatively determined that the impact of the thermal discharge from proposed Unit No. 4 is within acceptable limits under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. The unit will utilize chlorine in the circulating water system to control the growth of marine organisms in the condenser and intake tunnel. The control of this growth, or biofouling, is necessary to ensure that the flow of the cooling water and transfer of heat is not excessively impeded. The chlorine which is inserted into the circulating system is ultimately discharged to the discharge canal and then to the Bay. To ensure compliance with Florida Class III water quality standards applicable to discharges of chlorine, the Department of Environmental Regulation recommends in its conditions of certification that an effluent limitation of 0.2 milligrams per liter be imposed and a mixing zone encompassing 6.1 acres be established. Process waste streams associated with Unit No. 4 will include the boiler blowdown, the bottom ash system blowdown and the flue gas desulfurization system blowdown. These three waste streams will be discharged to the circulating water system and ultimately to the discharge canal currently in existence. Waste streams which are not discharged to surface waters include the various plant drains and waste waters from various plant washing operations that will take place. These waste streams will be collected and transported to the existing waste water pond and, from there, the waste water will be recycled to the extent possible. Final disposal of this waste water will be through the existing stray irrigation system. The existing waste water pond and spray irrigation field are designed to accommodate the additional use. Runoff from the coal pile facility will be contained on the site and transported to the existing waste water pond. A drainage system is provided for the plant for the runoff from the materials storage areas, the byproduct storage areas, and the construction activity associated with the main structure at Big Bend Unit No. 4. Materials and by-product storage area runoff will be intercepted and contained on site. Runoff from the Big Bend Unit No. 4 main construction area will be contained and pumped to the waste water pond. Other areas subject to construction will employ mitigative measures defined by the conditions of certification attached hereto. A potential concern exists that groundwater flow from the waste water treatment facilities and byproduct storage areas may result in leaching of pollutants into the groundwaters of the State. The groundwater at the existing site has been designated as Class I-B waters. The conditions of certification include a groundwater monitoring program designed to assess the ambient water quality and identify the potential impacts of leachate contamination with respect to the State groundwater quality standards. The impact to the existing water quality as a result of the discharge of the boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown streams through the circulating water system to the discharge canal and ultimately to the Bay will be undetectable across the plant, from the point where the circulating water is taken into the plant, combined with the three streams and released at the point of discharge. There will be no measurable change in water quality as a result of these discharges. The flue gas desulfurization blowdown stream and the bottom ash blowdown stream will be subject to treatment to meet State and federal effluent limitations. The flue gas desulfurization system will be treated for pH adjustment, suspended solids removal and oil and grease removal prior to discharge. The bottom ash system will include an adequately sized pond to remove suspended solids so that the effluent limitations will be met. Boiler blowdown will not require treatment to meet applicable effluent limitations. In addition to the treatment methods proposed above, Tampa Electric Company evaluated other options relating to the treatment of these streams to meet water quality standards for these discharges. Alternatives investigated included a zero discharge option, further recycling of the waste streams and various treatment methods to remove heavy metals prior to discharge. The cost of these alternatives ranges from $1.2 million to $1.8 million. Even with the treatment systems in place, there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, after addition of the discharges from the three identified waste streams. Tampa Electric Company concluded that based upon these factors, and primarily upon the fact that even with additional treatment there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, the expenditures are not justified in this circumstance. Tampa Electric Company requested variances from certain regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulation relating to ground and surface water quality standards. The request for variances from water quality standards for groundwater discharges contained in Rules 17-3.071 and 17- 3.101(1),(3),(4),(8),(9) and (13), Florida Administrative Code, can be resolved by defining a zone of discharge and implementation of the groundwater monitoring program as outlined in the attached conditions of certification. This variance request was therefore withdrawn by Tampa Electric Company at the hearing. The variance request from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17- 3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17- 3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium), Florida Administrative Code, for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown are recommended by the Department of Environmental Regulation to be granted for a period of two years after the start of commercial operation during which time TECO shall institute a study program, including monitoring, in accordance with the attached conditions of certification. The request for variances from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.061(2)(h) and 17-3.121(7) (lead), 17-3.051 (minimum criteria) and 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), Florida Administrative Code, were withdrawn by TECO at the hearing. Tampa Electric Company also requesting variances from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission rules relating to noise level standards and surface water quality standards. No representative of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission appeared at the hearing. A variance from the noise level standards contained in the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commissions's Rule 1-10.04A is requested for the steam blowing operation that is necessary prior to commercial operation of proposed Unit No. 4. This procedure is recommended by the equipment manufacturer to minimize damage to the steam turbine resulting from debris which may accumulate during construction of the unit. The noise levels produced from this steam venting operation vary from unit to unit and it is impossible to accurately predict what the noise levels will be. Violation of the provisions of the Commission's Rule 1-10.04A for short durations during the operation is possible. Tampa Electric Company will institute a notification procedure designed to inform residents in the area that the operation will occur over a short period of time. No adverse impact to residents and the environment in the affected area is anticipated and only minor inconvenience to the residents is expected to occur. The entire operation occurs only intermittently prior to initial start up of the unit and should encompass a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the start of the steam blowing operation. The surface water quality rules from which TECO seeks a variance from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission relate to the standards for chromium, lead, iron and arsenic for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown from Unit No. 4. This variance request is made for the life of the certification for Unit No. 4. The evidence demonstrates that the three waste streams identified above are discharged to the circulating water system and then to the discharge canal existing at the facility. The request for a variance from these pollutant parameters is based upon data compiled by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation which shows that ambient water quality existing in Hillsborough Bay contains concentrations of the identified parameters (chromium, iron, and arsenic) in amounts which are already above applicable Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards for Hillsborough Bay. The data concerning lead concentrations is inconclusive. The evidence demonstrates that with the exception of lead, the maximum values contained in the applicant's sampling data for chromium, iron, and arsenic are all above the applicable water quality standards. Access roads on the site which have been constructed for previous projects at the Big Bend Station are capable of assimilating additional traffic caused by the Unit No. 4 construction activities. There is very little opportunity for public access to the site during construction and operation. The vehicular traffic will be intercepted and controlled by a guard system at the entrance to the site on a 24-hour basis. In addition, all other fenced areas will be equipped with locked gates and patrolled by roving guards. Except for intermittent traffic congestion, plant construction is not expected to have an impact on the nearest residential communities of Apollo Beach and Adamsville. There are no historic, scenic, cultural, or natural areas or state parks and recreation areas which will be disturbed by the construction of Big Bend Unit No. 4. The construction of Unit No. 4 and its related facilities will involve the loss of approximately 272 acres of vegetation and habitat on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, some of which has been previously disturbed by construction activities associated with existing Units 1, 2 and 3. Sound levels predicted as a result of construction activities are below the maximum permissible sound levels in accordance with the Hillsborough County noise code limit of 60 dBA during the daytime in a residential area. The majority of construction will take place during daylight hours and no significant noise impact is expected at the surrounding residences from onsite construction activities. Most bird and animal species located near the site are expected to have adjusted to the existing sound levels resulting from Units 1, 2 and 3 operation. Although birds and animals nearest the plant may experience periodic "startle reaction" and move away from the noise source, no measurable effects of construction noise levels on organisms occurring near or beyond the immediate site location are anticipated. The area wide effect of construction and operation on wildlife and vegetation is not expected to be significant. Appropriate steps have been proposed to minimize the environmental impact of construction and operation of Unit No. 4. The Florida Public Service Commission has determined that there is a need in the State of Florida for the electric power to be produced by proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has generally concluded that there are no over-riding objections to the proposal for Unit No. 4 so long as adequate steps are taken to mitigate problems associated with air and water pollution. The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission has commented on the project and offered no objections to it. The Division of Archives, History and Records Management concluded that the proposed coal fired power plant is unlikely to affect any archeological or historical sites. The National Marine Fisheries Service has made several recommendations regarding once through cooling concerns including the use of fine mesh screens, but does not object to the overall project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns similar to those of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also does not object to the overall project. The Department of Veteran and Community Affairs has concluded that the application is generally compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Environmental Regulation has made no recommendation concerning the grant of denial of the variance requests from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rules. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Water Management District have all recommended certification of the proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4 subject to the stipulated conditions of certification which are attached to this Recommended Order. At the conclusion of the site certification hearing, members of the general public were given the opportunity to comment upon the application for site certification. No public testimony was offered.
Recommendation Based upon the entire record of this proceeding and the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: Tampa Electric Company be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of Big Bend Unit No. 4, the associated facilities and the directly associated transmission line, as proposed in the amended application and evidence in the record; The certification be subject to the conditions of certification attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix I; The variance request from the Department of Environmental Regulation's surface water quality standards be granted in accordance with the conditions of certification which are attached hereto; The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rule 1-10.04A governing noise requirements be granted for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the commencement of steam blowing operations, conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to notify the affected members of the public prior to the steam blowing operation; The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards contained in Rules 1-5.04,2. (general), 1-5.04,2.n (chromium), 1-5.04,2.q (iron), and 1-5.04,2r (arsenic) be granted for the life of the certification for Big Bend Unit No. 4; and The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards pertaining to lead, Rule 1-5.04,2.p., be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin and Robert P. Murray Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer NW Lakeland, Florida 33802 Louis F. Hubener Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Cone, Jr. Blain and Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Post Office Box 399 Tampa, Florida 33601 C., Laurence Keesey Department of Veteran and Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur C. Canaday General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Prentice C. Pruitt Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Administrator, Power Plant Siting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA In the Matter Of: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER PLANT SITING APPLICATION, BIG BEND STATION CASE NO. 80-1723EPP UNIT NUMBER 4 P.A. 79-12. /
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue There are two sets of issues to be considered in this matter which require separate determination. The issues in D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133 pertain to a notice of violation and orders for corrective action filed against Michael H. Hatfield related to the alleged construction of a causeway from a mainland shoreline to an island owned by Hatfield. In particular, that action by the Department alleges certain violations of environmental law and demands restoration of the area in which the causeway was constructed. The companion case, D.O.A.H. Case No. 84-0465, concerns Hatfield's request to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island in a location apart from the existing causeway. The Department has denied Hatfield's request for necessary permission to install that causeway.
Findings Of Fact Michael H. Hatfield is the owner of property in Marion County, Florida. That property is located on Lake Nicatoon, a 307 acre nonmeandered water body. Lake Nicatoon is a Class III water body as defined in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. To gain access to the island from the mainland, Hatfield sought permission from the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island. The area between the mainland and the island is subject to water level fluctuations in that at times it is essentially dry and other times is under the waters of Lake Nicatoon. His application for environmental permits was filed on May 13, 1980. A copy of that application may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. His proposed project calls for the placement of approximately 525 cubic yards of fill in wetlands and littoral zones adjacent to the mainland and island. Per the application, the causeway would be 7 yards wide at the bottom and a length of approximately 73 yards and is to be constituted of sand and crushed concrete block. In particular, Hatfield wishes access to allow construction of a residence on the island and to gain entrance to the residence after construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and on May 27, 1980, made a request to Hatfield to provide additional information related to his proposal. A copy of that request for additional information may be found as part of Department Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. Among the items requested was information from local government related to that entity's approval of the project in accordance with Section 253.124, Florida Statutes. This request was made based upon the perception by the Department of Environmental Regulation that Lake Nicatoon was found in the Florida Lakes Gazateer of Meandered Water bodies. The Department continued to operate on this erroneous assumption throughout the permit review process. Unknown to the Department, the lake was a nonmeandered lake which was discovered by Hatfield and verified on September 8, 1980, through an affidavit of the Division Director of State Lands for the State of Florida. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. In effect, although the Department had made a good faith request for information pursuant to chapter 253.124, Florida Statutes, that information was not necessary because Lake Nicatoon is nonmeandered and not subject to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, jurisdiction. Additionally, the requested hydrographic information pertaining to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, was not needed. Among the other items requested in the way of additional information was item No. 6, pertaining to the placement of fill. That request was not complied with. Requested information related to a plan view was not complied with. Requested information in the category of "notes and drawings" was not complied with. Requested information pertaining to plans for complying with state water quality standards for Class III waters as related in Section 17- 3.121, Florida Administrative Code, was not complied with. These materials were relevant to the permit review process and the request for the information was never modified nor abandoned by the Department, notwithstanding discussions between the parties in an attempt to reconcile their differences in the permit assessment process. Those suggested alternatives to grant Hatfield access were not satisfactory to Hatfield and the original description of his project as set forth in his application of May 1980, has remained constant throughout the permit review process to include the final hearing. Generally, the parties' discussion of the installation or a bridge between the mainland and the island or the placement of a temporary steel road during the course of construction of his residence on the island did not promote a modified permit application. Finally the indication by staff members of the Department of Environmental Regulation that the project envisioned by his original application would not likely be approved did not cause a change in the obligation to respond to the request for additional information. Even though Hatfield became aware that it was unlikely that the staff would look with favor upon the project as proposed, in making its recommendation as to the issuance or nonissuance of the permit, the staff attitudes in the review process could only have become accepted with finality at the point of entering the Recommended Order. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Hatfield to respond to the request for additional information, in that the information sought was relevant to a consideration of the project which would be examined in the course of the final hearing. The discussions, related to the grant of permission to gain access by placement of a structure between the landslide and the island, entered into by the Department and Hatfield, briefly mentioned before, involved 1) the possibility of the construction of a bridge, 2) use of a metal roadway during the buildout of his residence and 3) his proposal as offered through the application. The bridge proposal advanced by Hatfield was for a span of 20 to 30 feet end the Department desired a span of 200 feet. The reason for the length of bridge required by the Department was to assure protection of a reasonable amount of the lake ecosystem between the landside and the island. Hatfield found the Department's proposed bridge length to be unacceptable due to financial reasons. He likewise did not like the idea of a temporary utilization of a steel roadway to the island during the construction of his residence. Hatfield preferred a permanent road allowing vehicular traffic from the mainland to the island. In conjunction with this alternative offered by the Department, Hatfield could later access the island by utilization of a boat on those occasions when the waters of Lake Nicatoon stood between the landside and the island. While Respondent's application for dredge and fill permit was being considered, an inspection of the property made in the summer of 1982, revealed that a causeway connecting the mainland and Hatfield's island property had been constructed. This causeway is depicted in red on Department's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, a series of aerial photographs. Ground shots of the causeway may be found as Department of Environmental Regulation's photographic Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9, admitted into evidence. The causeway was primarily constructed by the dredge of material and placement of the material immediately next to the dredge site with an overlay of offsite fill. Respondent was responsible for the construction of this causeway. The causeway is not found in the location contemplated by his permit application and permission was not given by the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct the causeway. This construction occurred in an area dominated by the vegetative species beak rush (Rhynchospora tracyi). Having placed the causeway in this location, Hatfield has created a stationary installation which caused pollution in the course of that construction and can reasonably be expected to be a future source of pollution, in that the dredging and placement of fill and the effects of the structure after construction have emitted and shall emit in the future, substances that are harmful to plant and animal life, in contravention of the Department of Environmental Regulation's rules. By this installation, an alteration in the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the state has been occasioned by the destruction of submerged land vegetational communities which provide water treatment, and food and habitat for fish and wildlife. When the fill was placed, the filtration and assimilation system of Lake Nicatoon was adversely affected through the removal of existing wetland vegetation. Were the applicant granted the opportunity to install the proposed causeway, the same adverse effects or problems could be expected with that installation. Having discovered the existence of the causeway, and after warning Hatfield that this installation was in violation of regulatory statutes and rules related to the Department's responsibility in environmental matters, Hatfield was served with a notice of violation and orders for corrective action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. The date of this action was June 1983. A copy of that document may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. In this same time frame, the Department continued to evaluate the permit application of Hatfield related to the proposed causeway and an application appraisal for that proposal was made on June 6, 1983. A copy of that appraisal may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Subsequent to that time, and having failed to receive the aforementioned requested additional information from the Respondent, the Department issued its intent to deny the application related to the proposed causeway. A copy of the intent to deny may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The date of the denial was November 4, 1983. A more detailed examination of the area in question on the northern shoreline of the lake on the mainland side, shows that natural vegetation has been replaced with a Bahla type of grass. The gradient dropping toward the lake proper reveals upland grasses giving way to submerged species such as maiden cane (Panicum hemitom), pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) and pond lilies (Nymphaea). In this area, the transitional species to be found include St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum) and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Between the landside and the island, in the direction of the island, there are less rooted plants. The dominant plants in this vicinity are pond lilies. The distance to be traversed between the landside and the island related to landward extent of the lake on the landside and island where the proposed causeway would be located is approximately 550 feet, and net the 225 feet described in the application. As you approach the island from the landside, the last approximately 150 feet along the proposed causeway's alignment is dominated by transitional freshwater species to include doheen holly (Ilex cassine), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). The island, itself, is dominated by live oak and sable palm. To summarize, the area between the landside shoreline along the lake and the island shoreline, is dominated by submerged and transitional freshwater species as found in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. In the area of the proposed causeway are found detrital feeders, the most numerous of which are amphipods. There ore also larval insects and gastropods, bivalves and freshwater shrimp. Crayfish, frogs and tadpoles are found in this area. In addition, species of fish include mosquito fish, least killfish, shiners, blue spotted sunfish, juvenile largemouth bass, silverside and juvenile catfish. Bird species observed in the area are blue heron, snowy egret, lympkins and ibis. Soft-shell turtles have also been observed in the vicinity of the project site. Should the construction of the causeway be allowed, short and long-term adverse effects on surface waters of Lake Nicatoon can be expected and these effects will be negative. With installation of the causeway, there would be a permanent elimination of the water bodies' littoral zone vegetative community which is important in converting available dissolved nutrients into food material in the aquatic ecosystem. The vegetation also assists in the cleansing of the ambient water and by that action reducing pollution loading. With the construction of the causeway, state water quality standards related to biological integrity, Section 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code; nutrients, Section 17-3.121(17), Florida Administrative Code; and turbidity, Section 17-3.061(2)(r), Florida Administrative Code, can reasonably expected to be violated. Hatfield has failed to give reasonable assurances that the short and long-term impacts of the construction of the causeway would not violate and continue to violate water quality standards as alluded to. These problems as described exist while the unauthorized causeway remains. Hatfield, by actions involving private parties and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has sought necessary easements to gain access to his island property. While successful in this undertaking, these successes do not include the grant of a prohibition against the Department of Environmental Regulation performing its regulatory responsibility. In particular the decisions in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Marion County, Florida, Case No. 83-1826-C, Michael Hatfield, Plaintiff v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Defendant, granting partial Summary Judgment for the plaintiff and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss do not bar the Department from fulfillment of its regulatory charge. A copy of these decisions of court are found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In order to return the area where the unauthorized causeway has been placed to its prior existing condition, it would be necessary to remove the fill material and return elevations at the site to their prior level before the construction of the causeway. In addition, beak rush should be replanted in the areas where this dominant vegetation has been removed. An amount of $30.75 has been incurred in the way of cost to prosecute D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
