Findings Of Fact Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett have filed an application for issuance of a permit to dredge and fill a small area in the littoral, or "near shore," zone of Gillis Pond, a "sandhill lake" lying in what is known as the "sandhill region" of Central Florida, generally northeast of Gainesville. The dredging and filling as now proposed would be on and waterward of two lakefront lots jointly owed by the permit applicants. They seek by their application, authorization to dredge and fill at only one site on the waterward margin of the two lots with that modified project area reduced in size to a dimension of 12 feet by 25 feet. Fifteen feet of the project would be waterward of the shoreline. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty of enforcing, as pertinent hereto, the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-3 and 4, Florida Administrative Code, enforcing the water quality standards contained therein as they relate to dredge and fill projects of this sort, with concomitant permitting jurisdiction over such projects. The permit applicants desire this dredge and fill permit in order to make a safe, comfortable swimming area for Mrs. Anderson's family and friends. Mrs. Anderson desires to remove the tree stumps, roots and vegetation existing in the littoral zone area of the above dimensions in order to make access directly from the shore more comfortable and pleasant, especially for small children who are unable to swim in the deep water off the waterward end of the existing dock. Mrs. Anderson already has a 56 foot dock extending from her property into the lake. The water is 7 feet deep at the waterward end of the dock and the littoral zone containing aquatic vegetation extends beyond the length of the dock in a waterward direction. The project area would extend waterward of the shoreline, a distance of 15 feet, and would parallel the shoreline approximately a distance of 12 feet. The littoral zone vegetation at the site, however, extends waterward from the shoreline 50 to 60 feet. The proposed area to be dredged is quite small in size in relation to the total linear shoreline of the subject lake of approximately 4,000 feet. The dredged material would be excavated to a depth of approximately 6 inches over that 12 by 15 foot area and replaced with clean sand fill. The dredged material removed from the site would be secured on an upland site such that nutrient pollutants from that dredged material could not be leached or carried back into the lake through storm water runoff. Approximately one-third of the shoreline of the lake is bordered by a marsh or wet prairie which is approximately as large in area as the lake itself. The dominant vegetative species in the project area and surrounding the lake, including the marsh, are submerged freshwater species listed in Rule 17- 4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, including maidencane, sawgrass and a rare aquatic plant, websteria confervodies. Gillis Pond is a Class III water of the state, although its water quality parameters, or some of them, clearly exceed in quality, the minimum standards for Class III waters. Gillis Pond is what is termed an "ultra- oligotrophic lake, which means that its waters are characterized by a high level of transparency and very low nutrient content, that is to say that they are essentially pristine in nature. An oligotrophic lake such as this is very sensitive to any addition of nutrient pollutants. Even a small addition of nutrients to such water can cause an imbalance in the fauna and flora which have evolved to become dependent upon a low nutrient aquatic environment. Specifically, the rare aquatic plant named above is very sensitive to any enhanced nutrient levels and thus serves as a barometer of the water quality in this body of water. The addition of any nutrient pollutants to the lake, even in small amounts, might alter the chemical balance of the water in a derogatory manner so that the websteria confervodies might be eliminated. The elimination of this species from the littoral zone vegetation band surrounding the lake would likely result in other forms of vegetation supplanting it, altering the balance and makeup of the community of fauna and flora native to the lake and possibly hastening the progress of the lake toward eutrophication and degradation. The present water quality in the lake is such that dissolved oxygen and other criteria are better than the Class III water quality standards. The vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake and extending out as much as 50 to 60 feet waterward performs a significant function in uptaking and fixing nutrient pollutants that wash into the lake from storm water runoff from the surrounding uplands. Inasmuch as 30 to 40 feet of this belt of littoral zone vegetation would remain waterward of the dredged and filled area if the permit is granted, the nutrient uptake function of the vegetation in the littoral zone would not be significantly degraded. There are two locations where littoral zone vegetation has been removed in a similar fashion and water quality and flora and fauna communities characteristic of an oligotrophic lake are still present and healthy. Further, there is an extremely low nutrient level in the lake at the present time, and no significant amount of nutrient pollutants are leached or washed into the lake through septic tanks, storm water runoff or other sources. There is no question that the project as proposed would result in some slight, transitory degradation of water quality in the form of increased turbidity and reduced transparency. Turbidity will be caused during and shortly after the dredging and filling operation itself, caused by stirring up of bottom peat or sediments and by removal of a 12 by 15 foot area of aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake. Turbidity curtains in still waters such as involved here, can substantially reduce the spread of turbidity caused by the stirring up of bottom material and can substantially reduce the period of its suspension in the water by containing it at the dredged site. The vast majority of the littoral zone vegetation surrounding and waterward of the area to be dredged will remain such that the nutrient uptake function will be essentially undisturbed, thus any adverse impact on water quality will be insignificant. In terms of cumulative effect of allowing a multiplicity of such projects, not even a 10 percent loss of the littoral zone band of vegetation in the lake, which would be the maximum possible loss if all riparian land owners were allowed a similar size dredged and filled area on the front of their lots, would cause a violation of Department water quality standards. Parenthetically, it should be pointed out that such riparian owners cannot be prevented by any water quality criteria in Chapter 403 or Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, from having access to the lake in front of their lots. Such human traffic will have the gradual affect of destroying a significant amount of the littoral zone vegetation on and waterward of those lots (which is a cause and result the Department is powerless to regulate). By confining the destruction of littoral zone vegetation to such a small area as that involved in the application at bar and thus guaranteeing adequate, comfortable access for the riparian owner, the survivability of the remaining critical littoral zone vegetation will be significantly enhanced.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett for a dredge and fill permit as described in the modified and amended application be GRANTED; provided, however, that turbidity curtains are used during all dredging and filling activity and for a reasonable time thereafter until turbidity caused by the project has settled out of the water column. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tim Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett 6216-B, Southwest 11th Place Gainesville, Florida 32601 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Respondents violate the provisions of Rules 62-550.518(3), 62-555.320(4)(8), 62-560.410(2)(c), 62555.350(2), and 62-555.345, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96- 653PW2442C dated June 9, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, under the authority of an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for inspecting and clearing Public Water Systems in Polk County Florida under Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. (SDS) is a Florida corporation authorized to do business as Budget Motel. SDS is owned by Shaikh. Sanitary surveys are conducted by the Department every three years and include the inspection of Public Water Systems (PWS) . On January 26, 1996, the Department conducted a routine sanitary survey of Budget Motel (Budget) located at 1418 Highway 17 South, Lake Wales, Florida, which should have included Budget's public water system, PWS 6532442. However, Polk County's inspector, Henry Tagioff, was shown a well, by a Budget employee, that was located on the adjacent property owned by Smokey's Mobile Home Park (Smokey's) and not a part of Budget's water system. Tagioff was not aware that the well he inspected was owned by Smokey's and not on Budget's property. During the inspection, Tagioff noted several violations and advised the Budget employee that Tagioff needed to discuss these violations with Shaikh. On January 29, 1996, Tagioff and Lee Forgey, another Polk County employee, met with Shaikh to discuss the violations noted by Tagioff on January 26, 1996. During this meeting, Shaikh, Tagioff, and Forgey discussed the violations previously found by Tagioff on January 26, 1996, concerning the well on Smokey's property. At no time during this meeting did Shaikh advise Tagioff or Forgey that neither he nor Budget own the well under discussion. The record is not clear, but sometime between January and May 1996, Budget's well had collapsed and was not useable. Subsequent to Budget's well collapsing, Shaikh contracted with George Dunham, after obtaining Smokey's permission, to connect Budget's water system (PWS6532442) to Smokey's well. At the time of connecting Budget's water system to Smokey's well, Dunham advised Shaikh that this was only a temporary solution and gave Shaikh a proposal for a new well since Budget's old well could not be repaired. On May 2, 1996, Tagioff made a reinspection of Budget's water system and found that Budget's well had collapsed and was inoperable, and that Budget had connected to Smokey's well to furnish water to the motel and its guests. Tagioff advised Shaikh that Budget would need a new well since its old well was inoperable and the connection to Smokey's well was only temporary. On May 21, 1996, Mark Fallah, a Polk County employee, conducted a site inspection and prepared a report for use in connection with Budget's application with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for a new well permit. In connection with Fallah's site inspection and report, the Department advised Shaikh by letter dated May 21, 1996, of certain things concerning the new well that had to be completed prior to placing the well into public use. The letter provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon completion of the drilling and the verification of the grouting procedure by the Water Management District, the following items, as required by Chapters 62-555 and 62550 of the Florida Administrative Code, are to be completed prior to this water system being placed into public use. * * * 2. A continuous chlorination unit that is electrically interlocked with the well pump circuit. * * * A flow measuring device is required on all Non-Community Water Systems. A copy of the well completion report must be furnished to this office by the well driller within thirty (30) days after the well installation. Bacteriological clearance of the well must be performed by submitting twenty (20) consecutive water samples for analysis to an HRS certified laboratory. A maximum of two (2) samples per day taken at least six hours apart may be collected. Additional samples may be required until twenty (20) consecutive satisfactory samples are received. * * * After the well and plant construction is completed, contact our office for an inspection so that written clearance can be issued. It is prohibited for any Public water system to be placed into use without clearance being issued from this department. (Emphasis Furnished). SWFWMD approved Budget's new well application and issued Budget Permit No. 579811.01 for drilling a new well. However, upon completion of the new well, there were certain conditions that had to be met as indicated in the letter from the Department dated May 21, 1996. On May 31, 1996, and July 10, 1996, Fallah inspected Budget's new water system for compliance and, on both occasions, found that Budget had failed to install the chlorination unit, the flow meter, and had not submitted a well completion report or bacteriological samples. On July 15, 1996, the Department issued a Warning Notice to Shaikh advising him that the system could not be used until approved by the Department. For enforcement purposes, the file was transferred to Lewis Taylor, enforcement officer for drinking water systems for Polk County. On November 14, 1996, Taylor conducted an inspection of Budget's water system and reported that: (1) Budget's well had been placed into service without approval from the Department; (2) there was no chlorinator in operation; (3) there was no flow meter; (4) the Department had not received any bacteriological samples since November 1995; (5) there was no certified operator servicing the motel's water system; and (6) Budget had not provided public notice to its customers of its failure to monitor its drinking water. A second Warning Notice was issued by the Department and furnished to Shaikh on November 22, 19-96, which in substance advised Shaikh that Budget was in violation of Rules 62-550 and 62- 555, Florida Administrative Code, for its: (1) failure to obtain the Department's clearance before placing its new well in service; (2) failure to provide quarterly bacteriological samples; (3) failure to maintain proper chlorine residual in the water system; failure to provide a flow meter in the water system; (5) failure to provide public notification to its customers that its water system had failed to comply with Rule 62-550, Florida Administrative Code; and (6) failure to provide the Department with verification of Budget retaining a certified operator to oversee the operation and maintenance of its water system. On March 3, 1997, Tagioff and John GoPaul, US Environmental Agency, inspected Budget's water system and found that: (1) there was no chlorine residual in the system; (2) the chlorination unit located at the motel was not in use; (3) there was no flow meter within the system; (4) no quarterly bacteriological samples had been furnished to the Department; and the well had not been cleared for use by the Department. Based on the testimony of Lewis Taylor which I find credible, the Department has expended the following in the inspection of Budget's water system: (1) 20.25 hours of professional time at a rate of $30.00 per hour for a total of $607.50; (2) three hours of clerical time at a rate of $15.00 per hour for a total of $45.00; and (3) $27.00 in travel costs and postage. The total amount expended in the inspection of this water system by the Department was $679.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Respondents to comply with the Orders for Corrective Action as set out in the Notice of Violation and Orders of Corrective Action in Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96-653PW2442C. It is further recommended that Respondents be required to pay the costs and expenses of investigating the violations and prosecuting this matter in the amount of $679.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Habib U. Shaikh 4014 Billingsgate Road Orlando, Florida 32839-7515 SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. d/b/a Budget Motel 1418 Highway 17 South Lake Wales, Florida 33853
The Issue The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, City of Cape Coral (City), was entitled to an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (Permit) that would allow removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock (Lock) and associated uplands, and installation of a 165-foot linear seawall in the South Spreader Waterway in Cape Coral, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of the Department's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in the Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. The City is a Florida municipality in Lee County. The City is the applicant for the Permit allowing the removal of the Lock and installation of a seawall (Project). The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The South Spreader Waterway is a perimeter canal separating the City's canal system from shoreline wetlands to the west and south, which run the length of Matlacha Pass to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at San Carlos Bay.1/ The Association is a Florida non-profit corporation that was created in 1981. The Association was created to safeguard the interests of its members. The Association has approximately 150 members who reside in Matlacha and Matlacha Isles, Florida. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of waters adjacent to and surrounding Matlacha. The Association's members were particularly interested in protecting the water quality of the surface waters in the area. Matlacha is an island community located to the northwest of Cape Coral, the South Spreader Waterway, and the Lock. Matlacha is located within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Matlacha Pass is classified as a Class II waterbody designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting, and is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-02.400(17)(b)36; 62-302.700(9)(h). Petitioner, Karl Deigert, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Deigert is the president of the Association. Mr. Deigert’s house in Matlacha is waterfront. He holds a captain’s license and has a business in which he gives sightseeing and ecological tours by boat of the waters around Matlacha. He fishes in the waters around his property and enjoys the current water quality in the area. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would have negative effects on water quality and would negatively impact the viability of his business and his enjoyment of the waters surrounding Matlacha. Petitioner, Melanie Hoff, is a resident and property owner in St. James City. St. James City is located to the southwest of Cape Coral. Ms. Hoff’s property is located within five nautical miles of the Lock. Ms. Hoff engages in various water sports and fishes in the waters around her property. She moved to the area, in part, for the favorable water quality. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality and her ability to use and enjoy waters in the area. Petitioner, Robert S. Zarranz, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Mr. Zarranz’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. He is an avid fisherman and boater. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that the quality of fishing in the area would decline as a result. Petitioner, Yolanda Olsen, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Olsen’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She enjoys watersports and birdwatching in the areas around her property. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Jessica Blanks, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Blanks’ house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Joseph Michael Hannon, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Hannon is a member of the Association. He enjoys boating, fishing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Matlacha. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that his ability to enjoy his property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Debra Hall, did not appear at the final hearing and no testimony was offered regarding her standing. The Project and Vicinity The Project site is 0.47 acres. At the Lock location, the South Spreader Waterway is 200 feet wide, and includes a 125-foot wide upland area secured by two seawalls, the 20-foot wide Lock, a 32-foot wide upland area secured by one seawall, and 23 feet of mangrove wetlands. The Lock is bordered to the north by property owned by Cape Harbour Marina, LLC, and bordered to the south by mangrove wetlands owned by the state of Florida. The 125-foot wide upland area and the 20-foot wide Lock form a barrier separating the South Spreader Waterway from the Caloosahatchee River. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock is not tidally influenced, but would become tidally influenced upon removal of the Lock. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 46. The City proposes to remove the Lock and one of the seawalls, reducing the 125-foot upland area to 20 feet. The proposed future condition of the area would include 125 feet of open canal directly connecting the South Spreader Waterway with the Caloosahatchee River. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 47. The primary purpose of the Lock's removal is to alleviate safety concerns related to boater navigation. The Project's in-water construction includes demolition and removal of the existing Lock, removal of existing fill in the 125-foot upland area, removal of existing seawalls, and construction of replacement seawalls. The City would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the Project, including sediment and erosion controls such as turbidity barriers. The turbidity barriers would be made of a material in which manatees could not become entangled. All personnel involved with the Project would be instructed about the presence of manatees. Also, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. History of the South Spreader Waterway In the mid-1970's, the co-trustees of Gulf American Corporation, GAC Properties Credit, Inc., and GAC Properties, Inc., (collectively GAC) filed for after-the-fact permits from the Department's predecessor agency (DER), for the large dredge and fill work project that created the canal system in Cape Coral. In 1977, DER entered into CO 15 with GAC to create the North and South Spreader Waterways and retention control systems, including barriers. The Lock was one of the barriers created in response to CO 15. The Spreader Waterways were created to restore the natural hydrology of the area affected by GAC's unauthorized dredging and filling activity. The Spreader Waterways collected and retained surface runoff waters originating from the interior of Cape Coral's canal system. The South Spreader Waterway was not designed to meet water quality standards, but instead to collect surface runoff, then allow discharge of the excess waters collected over and through the mangrove wetlands located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This fresh water flow was designed to mimic the historic sheet flow through the coastal fringe of mangroves and salt marshes of the Caloosahatchee River and Matlacha Pass estuaries. The fresh water slowly discharged over the coastal fringe until it finally mixed with the more saline waters of the estuaries. The estuarine environments located west and south of the Lock require certain levels of salinity to remain healthy ecosystems. Restoring and achieving certain salinity ranges was important to restoring and preserving the coastal fringe. In 1977 GAC finalized bankruptcy proceedings and executed CO 15. CO 15 required GAC to relinquish to the state of Florida the mangrove wetlands it owned on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This land grant was dedicated by a warranty deed executed in 1977 between GAC and the state of Florida. The Petitioners' expert, Kevin Erwin, worked as an environmental specialist for DER prior to and during the construction of the Spreader Waterways. Mr. Erwin was DER's main representative who worked with the GAC co-trustees to resolve the massive dredge and fill violation and design a system to restore the natural hydrology of the area. Mr. Erwin testified that the Lock was designed to assist in retention of fresh water in the South Spreader Waterway. The fresh water would be retained, slowed down, and allowed to slowly sheet flow over and through the coastal fringe. Mr. Erwin also testified that the South Spreader Waterway was not designed to allow direct tidal exchange with the Caloosahatchee River. In Mr. Erwin's opinion, the South Spreader Waterway appeared to be functioning today in the same manner as originally intended. Breaches and Exchange of Waters The Department's second amended notice of intent for the Project, stated that the Project was not expected to contribute to current water quality violations, because water in the South Spreader Waterway was already being exchanged with Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River through breaches and direct tidal flow. This second amended notice of intent removed all references to mitigation projects that would provide a net improvement in water quality as part of the regulatory basis for issuance of the permit. See Joint Exhibit 1 at pp. 326-333. The Department's witnesses testified that waters within the South Spreader Waterway currently mix with waters of the Caloosahatchee River when the Lock remains open during incoming and slack tides. A Department permit allowed the Lock to remain open during incoming and slack tides. Department witness, Megan Mills, the permitting program administrator, testified that she could not remember the exact date that permit was issued, but that it had been "a couple years." The location of breaches in the western and southern banks of the South Spreader Waterway was documented on another permit's drawings and pictures for a project titled "Cape Coral Spreader Waterway Restoration." See Cape Coral Ex. 9. Those documents located three breaches for repair and restoration identified as Breach 16A, Breach 16B, and Breach 20. The modeling reports and discussion that support the City's application showed these three breaches connect to Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Breach 20 was described as a connected tidal creek. Breach 16A and 16B were described as allowing water movement between Matlacha Pass and the South Spreader Waterway only when relatively high water elevations occurred in Matlacha Pass or in the South Spreader Waterway. The Department's water quality explanation of "mixing," was rather simplistic, and did not consider that the waterbody in which the Project would occur has three direct connections with an OFW that is a Class II waters designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting. Such a consideration would require the Department to determine whether to apply the OFW permitting standards, and the Class II waters permitting criteria in section 10.2.5 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); 62-4.242(2); and 62-302.400(17)(b)36. The Caloosahatchee River, at its entrance to the South Spreader Waterway, is a Class III waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. The mouth of the Caloosahatchee River is San Carlos Bay, which is a Class II waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. There was no evidence that the Department's regulatory analysis considered that the waterbody in which the Project would occur directly connects to Class III waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and is in close proximity to Class II waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(17)(b)36. and 62-330.302(1)(c).2/ Total Nitrogen The City's expert, Anthony Janicki, Ph.D., testified that nitrogen concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River were higher than in the South Spreader Waterway in the years 2017 and 2018. Thus, he opined that if the Lock is removed, water from the South Spreader Waterway would not negatively impact the Caloosahatchee River. However, the City's application was supported by an analysis, with more than a decade of monitoring data, which showed nitrogen concentration values were comparable inside the South Spreader Waterway and in the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Janicki also used the Department's Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model to estimate the Total Nitrogen (TN) loading that would enter the Caloosahatchee River through the Chiquita Lock. Dr. Janicki estimated that TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River, after removal of the Chiquita Lock, would amount to 30,746 pounds per year. The Caloosahatchee River is listed as impaired for nutrients and has a TN Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was set by the Department in 2009. Dr. Janicki opined that removing the Lock would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. But the Petitioners obtained his concession that his opinion was dependent on the City's completion of additional water quality enhancement projects in the future as part of its obligations under the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for achieving the TN TMDL. Dr. Janicki additionally testified that the potential TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River did not anticipate an actual impact to the River's water quality because the TN loads from the South Spreader Waterway were already factored into the 2009 TMDL. He essentially testified that the Lock's removal was anticipated and was factored into the model when the TMDL was established in 2009. Thus, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department and the City were not aligned regarding how the City's application would provide reasonable assurances of meeting applicable water quality standards. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the City relied on future projects to provide reasonable assurance that the removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department relied on a simplistic exchange of waters to determine that removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Water Quantity and Salinity The engineering report that supports the City's application stated that when the Lock is removed, the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock will become tidally influenced. With the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes for the South Spreader Waterway would increase from zero cubic meters per day to 63,645 cubic meters per day. At the location of Breach 20, with the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes would drastically decrease from 49,644 cubic meters per day to eight cubic meters per day. Dr. Janicki testified that Breach 20 was connected to a remnant tidal creek that meanders and eventually empties into an embayment. The evidence demonstrated that the embayment is Punta Blanca Bay, which is part of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Dr. Janicki opined that Breach 20 was an area of erosion risk and sediment transport into downstream mangroves that would be significantly reduced by removing the Lock. He explained that the reductions in flow would result in reductions in velocities through Breach 20 and in the South Spreader Waterway itself. Mr. Erwin testified that Breach 20 was not a "breach."3/ He described it as the location of a perpendicular intersection of the South Spreader Waterway with a small tidal creek, which connected to a tidal pond further back in the mangroves. Mr. Erwin testified that an "engineered sandbag concrete structure" was built at the shallow opening to limit the amount of flow into and out of this tidal creek system. But it was also designed to make sure that the tidal creek system "continued to get some amount of water." As found above, Lock removal would drastically reduce the volume of daily water fluxes into and out of Breach 20's tidal creek system. Mr. Erwin also testified that any issues with velocities or erosion would be exemplified by bed lowering, siltation, and stressed mangroves. He persuasively testified, however, that there was no such evidence of erosion and there were "a lot of real healthy mangroves." Mr. Erwin opined that removal of the Lock would cause the South Spreader Waterway to go from a closed, mostly fresh water system, to a tidal saline system. He described the current salinity level in the South Spreader Waterway to be low enough to support low salinity vegetation and not high enough to support marine organisms like barnacles and oysters. The City's application actually supports this opinion. Using the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model developed by Dr. Janicki for this Lock removal project, comparisons were made describing the salinity distribution within the South Spreader Waterway. The model was run with and without the Lock, for both a wet and dry year. Dr. Janicki testified, and the model showed, that removal of the Lock would result in increased salinity above the Lock and decreased salinity downstream of the Lock. However, he generally opined that the distribution of salinities was well within the normal ranges seen in this area. The City's application also concluded that the resultant salinities did not fall outside the preferred salinity ranges for seagrasses, oysters, and a wide variety of fish taxa. However, Dr. Janicki did not address specific changes in vegetation and encroachment of marine organisms that would occur with the increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway. Secondary Impacts to the Mangrove Wetlands Mr. Erwin testified that the mangroves located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway are currently in very good health. He additionally testified that loss of the current fresh water hydraulic head and an increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway would negatively impact the health of the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the City's application stated that removing the Lock would result in a drop in the water level of one to one and a half feet within the South Spreader Waterway. Mr. Erwin credibly and persuasively testified that a drop in water level of only a few inches would have negative effects on the health of mangroves, and that a drop of a foot could result in substantial mangrove die-off. Mr. Erwin testified that the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway consist of a variety of plants and algae in addition to mangroves. He described the wetlands as a mangrove community made up of different types of mangroves, and epiphytic vegetation such as marine algae. This mangrove community provides habitat for a "wide range of invertebrates." He further testified that these plants and algae uptake and transform the nutrients that flow over and through the mangrove wetlands before they reach the receiving waters. Thus, the mangrove wetlands on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway serve to filter nutrients out of the water discharged from the Waterway before it reaches Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River. Mr. Erwin's credible and persuasive testimony was contrary to the City's contention that Lock removal would not result in adverse impacts to the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. The City and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurances that removing the Lock would not have adverse secondary impacts to the health of the mangrove wetlands community adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered and Threatened Species The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the City's application and determined that if BMPs for in-water work were employed during construction, no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife were expected. For example, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities, and all personnel would be instructed about the presence of manatees. The FWC determination only addressed direct impacts during in-water construction work. The City's application contained supporting material that identified the major change resulting from removal of the Lock that may influence fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the Project, was the opportunity for movement to or from the South Spreader Waterway canal system. Threatened and endangered species of concern in the area included the Florida manatee and the smalltooth sawfish. The City's application stated that literature review showed the smalltooth sawfish and the Florida manatee utilized non-main-stem habitats, such as sea-wall lined canals, off the Caloosahatchee River. The City cited studies from 2011 and 2013, which showed that non-main-stem habitats were important thermal refuges during the winter, and part of the overall nursery area for smalltooth sawfish. The City concluded that removal of the Lock "would not be adverse, and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species." However, the Petitioner's expert witness, John Cassani, who is the Calusa Waterkeeper, testified that there is a smalltooth sawfish exclusion zone downstream of the Lock. He testified that the exclusion zone is a pupping area for smalltooth sawfish, and that rapid salinity fluctuations could negatively impact their habitat. The City also concluded that any impacts to the Florida manatee would not be adverse, "and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species, as well as a reduction in risk of entrapment or crushing in a canal lock system." At the same time, the City acknowledged that "watercraft collision is a primary anthropogenic threat to manatees." The City's literature review included a regional assessment by FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) from 2006. Overall, the FWRI report concluded that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, at San Carlos Bay, was a "hot spot" for boat traffic coinciding with the shift and dispersal of manatees from winter refugia. The result was a "high risk of manatee- motorboat collisions." In addition, testimony adduced at the hearing from an 18-year employee of Cape Harbour Marina, Mr. Frank Muto, was that Lock removal would result in novice boaters increasing their speed, ignoring the no-wake and slow-speed zones, and presenting "a bigger hazard than the [L]ock ever has." Boater Navigation Concerns Oliver Clarke was the City’s principal engineer during the application process, and signed the application as the City's authorized agent. Mr. Clarke testified that he has witnessed boater congestion at the Lock. He also testified that lack of boating experience and weather concerns can exacerbate the boater congestion issues at the Lock. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Frank Muto, the general manager of Cape Harbour Marina. Mr. Muto has been at the Cape Harbour Marina for 18 years. The marina has 78 docks on three finger piers along with transient spots. The marina is not currently subject to tidal flows and its water depth is between six and a half and seven and a half feet. He testified that they currently have at least 28 boats that maintain a draft of between four and a half and six feet of water. If the water depth got below four feet, those customers would not want to remain at the marina. Mr. Muto further testified that the Lock was in place when the marina was built, and the marina and docks were designed for an area with no tidal flow. Mr. Muto also testified that he has witnessed several boating safety incidents in and around the Lock. He testified that he would attribute almost all of those incidents to novice boaters who lack knowledge of proper boating operations and locking procedures. Mr. Muto additionally testified that there is law enforcement presence at the Lock twenty-four hours a day, including FWC marine patrol and the City's marine patrol.
Conclusions For Petitioners: J. Michael Hannon, Qualified Representative 2721 Clyde Street Matlacha, Florida 33993 John S. Turner, Esquire Peterson Law Group Post Office Box 670 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 For Respondent City of Cape Coral: Craig D. Varn, Esquire Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven D. Griffin City of Cape Coral Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 150027 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Individual Environmental Resource Permit Number 244816-005 to the City of Cape Coral for removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock. The final order deny Petitioners' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc., to modify and expand an existing marina facility associated with an existing adjacent hotel, based on reasonable assurances from the applicant that the proposed project satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the review of environmental resource permit applications and for the regulation of water pollution in specified waters of the state. SBH is a Florida corporation and the general partner of Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Limited (Hotel Associates), the owner of the property in question. The complex at issue is composed of the Hyatt Hotel and certain submerged land underlying the proposed project. SBH is the authorized agency for Hotel Associates for the purpose of obtaining the permit in issue. Petitioners are associations of condominium owners whose properties lie adjacent and to the west of the site in question. The parties stipulated that all Petitioners had standing in this proceeding. The site at issue, owned by Hotel Associates, consists of a portion of the submerged bottoms within a sea- walled, rectangular-shaped, man-made basin which runs in a north-south direction west of U.S. Highway 41 in Sarasota. It is connected by a narrowed channel to Sarasota Bay at its southern end. Hotel Associates owns approximately the northern one-third of the basin, and Petitioners own approximately the western one-half of the southern two-thirds of the basin. Petitioners' property is not covered in the proposed permit. The remaining portion of the basin, comprised of the eastern one-half of the southern two-thirds, is owned by an entity which is not a party to this action, and that portion of the bottom also is not covered by the proposed permit. However, in order for boat traffic to reach the property in issue, the boats must traverse the southern two- thirds of the basin. Both Petitioners and the unconnected third owner maintain existing finger piers within their respective portions of the basin outside the portion in issue. The basin in which the marina in question is located is classified as a Class III water body and is connected to Sarasota Bay, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. Sarasota Bay is located approximately twelve hundred feet from the head of the basin and approximately eight hundred feet from the southern property line of the basin. As of the date of the hearing, the applicant, SBH, operated a permitted marina facility within the perimeter of the property in issue. This permit was issued years ago after the fact; that is, after the marina had already been constructed. As it currently exists, the marina is made up of perimeter docks which adjoin the northern and eastern sides of the basin and includes eight finger piers which provide ten to fifteen slips. In addition, a perimeter dock extends around an existing restaurant which sits on pilings over in the northeast end of the basin. Repairs and modifications were made to the facility under then-existing exemptions in 1995. These included the replacement of numerous copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA) treated pilings and the re-decking of existing walkways and finger piers with CCA-treated wood. At the present time, seven of the finger-pier slips are under lease to a commercial charter fleet, Chitwood Charters, and one slip located along the perimeter dock is leased to a dive boat operation, Scuba Quest. At least one other finger-pier slip has a boat docked at it for an extended period. This boat is owned by Charles Githler, president of SBH. The remaining finger-pier and perimeter slips are ordinarily used on a transient basis by guests of the Hyatt Hotel and the restaurant. The existing facility, including the finger piers slips and the perimeter slips, contains approximately 6,700 square feet of docking space and is designed to accommodate between twenty to thirty boats, depending upon the length of the boats. On occasion, however, as many as 40 to 60 boats have been docked at the facility. At times, when demand increases, the larger slips have been subdivided to allow up to four boats to be stern-moored per slip. Even more boats have been docked at the facility for boat shows by the use of stern mooring or "rafting," which calls for boats to be moored tied together, side by side, out from the docks. By application dated May 18, 1999, and received by the Department's Tampa District office on June 16, 1999, SBH sought to obtain from the Department a permit to modify and expand its existing marina facility. It proposed to expand the existing approximately 6,700 square feet of dock space to approximately 7,000 square feet, thereby creating a marina with 32 designated slips. Conditions to issuance of the permit, agreed to by the applicant, include a limitation on the number of boats which may be moored at the facility at any time and the addition of storm water treatment capability to the existing storm water drainage system. SBH also agreed to reduce the terminal end of the middle pier from 900 to 400 square feet. SBH also agreed to accept the imposition of several other permit conditions required by the Department, and to offset any impacts on wildlife and water quality as a result of the operation of the permitted facility. In addition to requiring that all long-term slip leases incorporate prohibitions against live-aboards and dockside boat maintenance, these conditions include the following: Overboard discharges of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel shall not occur at the docks. Sewage pump-out service shall be available at the marina facility. * * * 18. Fish cleaning stations, boat repair facilities and refueling facilities are not allowed. 20. There shall be no fueling or fueling facilities at the facility. * * * 28. The shoreline enhancement indicated on Attachment A shall be implemented within 30 days. * * * 30. The permittee shall perform water quality monitoring within the basin at the locations indicated on Attachment A semiannually (January and July of each year) for a period of 5 years. * * * All piles shall be constructed of concrete with exception of 18 mooring piles identified in permit submittals. This permit authorizes the mooring (temporarily or permanently) of a maximum of [32] watercraft at the subject facility. A harbormaster must be designated and maintained at the subject facility. In order to be in compliance with this permit, the ”OARS Ultra-Urban" hydrocarbon adsorbent insert, or Department approved equal, must be installed within the catch basin inlets as shown on the approved drawings. At a minimum, the hydrocarbon adsorbent material shall be replaced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. More frequent inspections and replacement of the filtration media may be required, depending on local conditions and results of the required water quality monitoring. * * * The permittee/grantee/lessee shall ensure that: In order to provide protection to manatees during the operation of this facility, permanent manatee information and/or awareness sign(s) will be installed and maintained to increase boater awareness of the presence of manatees, and of the need to minimize the threat of boats to these animals. SBH has also agreed to replace existing CCA-treated wood decking with concrete and fiberglass decking and to replace approximately 80 existing CCA-treated wood pilings with concrete pilings. Based on its analysis of the permit application and the supporting documentation submitted therewith, the Department, on March 2, 2000, entered a Notice of Intent to issue the permit for this project. Shortly thereafter, on March 25, 2000, after obtaining a minimal extension of time to file, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing opposing the issuance of the proposed permit. Departmental decisions on water quality permits such as that in issue here are dependent upon the applicant satisfying the Department's requirements in several identified areas. These include the impact of the project on water quality; impact of the project on the public health, safety, and welfare; impact of the project on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species; impact of the project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion and shoaling; impact of the project on the immediate fishing, recreational values and marine productivity; impact of the project on archeological resources; impact of the project on the current condition and relative value of functions currently performed by areas to be affected; whether the project is permanent or temporary; and a balancing of the criteria, cumulative impacts, and secondary impacts. Addressing each of these in turn, it is clear that the current quality of the water within the existing marina is below established standards. Respondents admit that Petitioner has shown that the existing marina operation has diminished water quality conditions and created an environment that has potential adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife which frequent the basin as well as some of the neighboring property owners. This is not to say that these impacts were envisioned when the basin was constructed. However, other than as they relate to fish and wildlife and to water quality, the problems created by the marina do not relate to most permit criteria. The Respondent's experts calculate that due to its configuration and location, the basin naturally flushes approximately every 14.75 days. This is an inadequate time period to fully disperse any pollutants found in the basis. As a result of the inadequate flushing and the continuing use of the basin as a marina, there are resulting impacts to the water quality surrounding the existing facilities. Mr. Armstrong, Petitioner's water quality expert, indicated the project as proposed would lengthen even further the flushing time because of the addition of new boats and, to a lesser degree, the additional pilings and dock structure. These additions would, he contends, result in additional obstructions to water movement and cause a resultant increase in flushing time. While flushing is not a requirement of the permit, it has a bearing on water quality which is a consideration. Petitioners also argue that the mitigation measures proposed in the permit are inadequate and attack the qualifications of Mr. Cooper, the Department's storm water engineer. They point out alleged errors in Cooper's analysis and cite Mr. Armstrong, an individual with significant experience in water quality monitoring and analysis, to support their other witnesses' conclusions that more boats will increase the risk of hydrocarbon pollution from gasoline and diesel engines. Petitioners urge that the increased contamination, when coupled with the slow flushing action, would tend to settle down to where the pollutants enter the water - in the basin. Since it is clear these impacts would exist and continue even were the pending project not constructed, the issue, then, is whether the proposed project will worsen these environmental impacts. Respondents' authorities calculate they would not. In fact, it would appear the proposed changes called for in the permit, the removal of CCA-treated wood and its replacement with concrete piling and decking and the installation of storm water treatment apparatus, would reduce the adverse impacts to water quality within the basin and, in fact, improve it. It is so found. An issue is raised in the evidence as to the actual number of boats which can effectively use the marina at any one time. SBH contends the present configuration calls for between twenty to thirty boats. Evidence also shows that at times, during boat shows for example, many more boats are accommodated therein through "rafting." Even if the facility is expanded by the most significant number of slips, there is no concrete evidence there would be a significantly increased usage. The current usage is normally well below capacity. Modifications proposed under the pending permit could add as many as ten to fifteen additional slips. The Department has considered it significant that SBH has agreed to limit the number of boats that can be docked in this marina, even after modification. Unfortunately, no specific figure has been given for this limit, and, therefore, it cannot be shown exactly how much long-term water quality benefit can be expected. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw, as the Department has done, that if the number of boats is limited to a figure at or even slightly higher that that which is currently experienced, a long-term benefit can be expected with the implementation of the other mitigation conditions. This benefit currently cannot be quantified, however. What can be established, and all parties agree, is that the basin currently does not meet water quality standards for copper and dissolved oxygen. The proposed permit addresses the issue of dissolved oxygen by requiring SBH to follow best management practices in the operation of the marina; to treat storm water discharge which enters the marina; and to provide a sewage pump-out station at the marina which would prevent the discharge of sewage into the water. The issue of the water's copper level is addressed by the removal of the CCA-treated pilings and decking and their replacement with concrete and fiberglass; the treatment of the storm-water discharge before its discharge into the basin; and the hiring of a harbor master to ensure that the prohibition against hull scraping at the basin is complied with. A restriction on the number of boats allowed into the marina at any one time would also treat the copper problem by reducing the exposure to anti-fouling paint containing copper. This is a condition of the permit. It is important to note that under existing statutory and rule exemptions, SBH could repair or replace the existing dock structure without the need for a permit. However, the issuance of a permit which permits modification and a slight expansion of the facility will prohibit the replacement of the existing CCA-treated wood with CCA-treated wood. The concrete and fiberglass pilings and decking will not leach copper into the water and, in time, should result in a lower concentration of that substance in the water. Another consideration of the permitting authorities relates to the impact the project would have on public health, safety, and welfare. Petitioners expressed concern that an increase in the number of slips called for in the proposed project would cause an increase in the number of boats that utilize the basin. Currently, though there are a limited number of slips available, there is no limitation on the number of boats which may use the facility. A reasonable estimate of capacity, considering the configuration of the docks and slips and the permit limitations established, indicates that no more than thirty-two boats will be permitted to use the basin at any one time. If this limitation is followed, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the water quality. Petitioners also express concern that an increase in the number of authorized boats using the marina will result in an increase in the number of boats traveling at excessive speeds in entering and exiting. No evidence was introduced in support of this theory, but, in any case, Respondents counter- hypothesize that the increase in allowed boats will result in an increase in long term lessors over transients, and suggest that long term users are more considerate than transients. Neither side presented any substantial evidence in support of its positions. The impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife is a mandated consideration by the agency. No evidence was presented by either side regarding the existence of fish and wildlife in the area, much less threatened species, other than manatees. To be sure, these noble creatures inhabit the marina at times in appreciable numbers. The threat to them, however, comes from boat strikes, and no evidence was presented as to the number of strikes caused by boats in the marina or its approaches or the seriousness of these strikes. The agency to which the review of impacts to manatees was left, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) opined that the permit cap of 32 boats would keep to a minimum the potential impact to manatees from this project. Any increase in the number of boats, and the minimal impact increase thereby, should, it was considered, be offset by compliance with permit conditions. This opinion was contradicted by Mr. Thompson, Petitioner's manatee expert, who argued against any increase of boat traffic in manatee areas. This position is not the policy of the Department and is not controlling here. Further, it would appear this expert did not consider any mitigation factors proposed by SBH, as the Department is required to do. Taken together, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the expected impact of this project on fish and wildlife, including those threatened and endangered species, is minimal. Based on the evidence of record, it is found that the expected impact of this project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion, and shoaling in the vicinity is virtually non- existent. The only factor bearing on this issue is the number of boats which will use the facility and its approach. Permit conditions call for a limitation on the number of water craft which will use the facility to be permitted to a number lower than that which uses it, at times, under current conditions. The water is a dead-end harbor, with no through traffic. There is no evidence of either erosion or shoaling now. It would not likely increase. A reduction in traffic as would occur under the conditions imposed by the permit can do nothing but reduce the potential for propeller dredging by boat traffic and the water turbidity that would accompany such strikes. This would improve navigation slightly, and there should be no adverse impact to the flow of water. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish any negative impact on fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project, which is permanent in nature. By the same token, no adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources was shown by the evidence of record. The facility in issue is currently a commercial activity consisting of a docking facility and a restaurant. No evidence was introduced to show that the project proposed would have an adverse impact on the current condition and relative value of the current function. In fact, the evidence indicates that the facility would be improved. Though not raised by the evidence, it should be noted that Petitioners presented no evidence that their property values as adjacent property owners, would be adversely effected by this project. In balancing the criteria, cumulative impacts and secondary impacts of the proposed project on the immediate and surrounding area, it appears that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. The marina supports the hotel and restaurant which is on it. Adjoining property owners, the Petitioners, expressed concern that the modifications to the existing marina will result in a decrease in water quality in the basin; will increase the potential for fuel spills with their related short term discomforts and long term damages; and will increase the danger to the manatee population which periodically uses the basin. While they are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property, it is unreasonable for those who live on the water to expect that the benefits of living by the water would not carry with it the potential for some periodic discomfort created by waterfront activity. The weight of the evidence presented in this case indicates no significant cumulative adverse impacts from this project. To the contrary, the state of the evidence suggests an improvement in water quality and navigation in the basin and its approaches, and any secondary impacts resulting from the accomplishment of the project would be minimal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order issuing to Sarasota Bay Hotel the requested permit to modify and expand the existing marina facility located adjacent to the existing Hyatt Hotel at 1000 Boulevard of the Arts in Sarasota, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara B. Levin, Esquire Scott A. Haas, Esquire Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford & Gordon 240 South Pineapple Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236 Graig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark A. Hanson, Esquire Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A. 2033 Main Street Suite 403 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to connect his canal to the Caloosahatchee River be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1976.
The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties described the nature of the controversy as follows: This matter involves a challenge to a Technical Staff Report and Recommendation made by Respon- dent's staff on a consumptive use permit applica- tion for water submitted to Respondent by Petitioner. Petitioner owns a recreational facility where water is being used. The Staff Report recommends that certain conditions be imposed upon the permit proposed to be issued to Petitioner placing limitations on the amount of water which may be consumed by Petitioner and requiring Petitioner to report on numbers of persons utilizing Respondent's facility. In that same stipulation, the parties described their respective positions as follows: Petitioner's Position: The present use of water at the Wekiva Falls Resort is a reasonable beneficial use which should not be reduced or limited by permit conditions. The standpipes through which the water flows are not wells and therefore should not be subject to any regulation by Respondent. The placement of the standpipes did not increase the flow of water but rather captured the already existing flow from natural springs which existed on the property prior to the placement of the standpipes. Petitioner feels his use does not come within the permitting power of Respondent, and that if it does, its use should be allowed to continue without any reductions in flow. Respondent's Position: After review of Petitioner's consumptive use permit application for the use of water emanating from two standpipes, one twenty-four (24) inches in diameter and the other fourteen inches in diameter, the staff of the District determined that the standpipes were wells subject to the District's regulation under Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code, and recommended approval of the permit with certain conditions requiring a reduction in flow during certain low or non-use periods. This matter arose from Petitioner's application to the District for a consumptive use permit that would allocate water to the Petitioner from water flowing from a 24-inch metal pipe and a 14-inch metal pipe for use at Petitioner's campground. The District maintains that, not only is the water that is drawn from the metal pipes and used at the campground regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, but also that the remaining water that flows from the two metal pipes and is used by Petitioner to maintain a swimming area is regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has not applied for an allocation of water for maintaining the swimming area. Even though the Petitioner has not applied for such an allocation, the use of water for maintaining the swimming area has been evaluated because the Petitioner maintained that, even if the water used to maintain the swimming area is regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the flow of water from the metal pipes should not be restricted in any fashion from the ongoing flow. Thus, the issues presented are whether the application that was applied for should be granted, whether the Petitioner has to apply for an additional allocation in order to continue using water to maintain the swimming area, and what, if an additional allocation is sought, the permit would be. In their Prehearing Stipulation the parties also agreed to the following issues of law. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding subject to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent the standpipes located on Petitioner's property are determined to be wells, they are governed by and subject to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The procedural rules which apply to this proceeding are Chapters 40C-1, 28-5, and 22-I, Florida Administrative Code. The parties also agreed to the following as being the ultimate issues of fact which remained to be litigated. Whether the two standpipes constitute an excavation that was drilled, cored, washed, driven, dug, jetted, or otherwise constructed with the intended use of such excavation to be for the location, acquisition, development, or artificial recharge of water. Whether the continued use by Petitioner of water at pre-permit levels is a use of water in a quantity necessary for economic and efficient utilization for a purpose and in a manner which is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. Whether the continued use of water by Petitioner at pre-permit levels would increase the danger of saline water encroachment. Whether a reduction in flow of water will result in a reduction in water quality for the uses made of the water by Petitioner. Whether a reduction in flow of water would have adverse impacts on the quality of water in the Wekiva River. Subsequent to the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on December 22, 1986, and, pursuant to request of the parties, they were allowed 30 days from that date within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered and a specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by each party is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admissions in prehearing stipulation Petitioner is a private individual who owns and does business as the Wekiva Falls Resort in Lake County, Florida. Respondent, a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, is charged with the statutory responsibility of the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Consumptive Uses of Water, specifically Sections 373.219 and 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency affected in this proceeding. The District has assigned Petitioner's permit application, which is the subject of this proceeding, the permit number 2-069-0785AUS. On September 4, 1985, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a CUP application number 2-069-0785AUS to withdraw water from two wells, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Petitioner's property in Lake County, Florida. The water which flows from the two standpipes flows through a creek which was improved by Petitioner, said creek having as its terminus the Wekiva River. The standpipes were put in place by Petitioner or his authorized agents or employees in 1972. The area of the Wekiva River into which the creek leading from the two standpipes flows has been designated as an aquatic preserve and an "Outstanding Florida Water." On May 23, 1986, Respondent's staff gave notice of its intent to recommend approval with conditions of Petitioner's CUP application number 2-069- 0785AUS. Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed with the District. Findings based on evidence at hearing Petitioner filed his CUP application on September 4, 1985, one week in advance of the September 11, 1985, deadline for existing users of water to file applications which would establish and protect their existing user status. Petitioner's application requests an allocation of 31.7 million gallons per year (mgy) for the following uses: 8 per cent for cooling and air conditioning, 3 per cent for outside use, and 89 per cent for commercial and industrial use. Petitioner has made no application for any allocation of water for water based recreation. The Wekiva Falls Resort property consists of approximately 140 acres stretching 4800 feet in length between Wekiva River Road and the Wekiva River. The property is located along the Wekiva River between State Road 46 and the Orange County, Florida, line. Seminole County, Florida, is on the opposite side of the Wekiva River from the subject property. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 1968. At that time it was a heavily overgrown rural tract. Petitioner observed a stream which came under Wekiva River Road, passing through seven culverts, and running the length of the property to the Wekiva River. This stream carries runoff from Petitioner's property as well as runoff from areas west of the property on the opposite side of Wekiva River Road. At a point approximately midway between the Wekiva River and Wekiva River Road, along the stream, a depressional area was located by Petitioner, through which the stream flowed. Petitioner observed that more water was flowing downstream from the depressional area than upstream. Petitioner's property is located in an area of natural artesian flow where springs or seeps are not uncommon. Because the area in which the subject property is located is one of natural artestian flow, it is likely that a surficial seep of water existed in the depressional area which generated a flow of water. None of the available geological or hydrogeological information or data would indicate the existence of a spring or springs on this site prior to the drilling undertaken by Petitioner. At the time the first well was drilled by Dick Joyce Well Drilling, Inc., no spring was observed by the driller. Further, in conversations with the Executive Director of the District in 1974, no mention was made by the Petitioner of the existence of a spring or springs at the site prior to drilling. On July 17, 1969, Petitioner measured the stream flow and calculated same to be 23.97 cubic feet per second. The methodology utilized by Petitioner in measuring the stream flow in its natural state was an accepted methodology. However, this measurement did not discriminate between the water flowing into the depressional area from the stream carrying runoff from the lands upstream of the depressional area and the water originating from surficial seeps in the depressional area. Thus, this amount cannot be utilized or relied upon as a measurement of the amount of water emanating from seeps in the depressional area before drilling was undertaken by Petitioner. Nevertheless, other evidence indicates that the total volume of water flowing from Petitioner's property into the Wekiva River was probably substantially the same both before and after the installation of the two wells on Petitioner's property. In any event, the installation of Petitioner's wells does not appear to have increased the flow of the Wekiva River downstream of where Wekiva Canoe Creek discharges. In undertaking the development of his property as a resort/campground/recreational vehicle facility, Petitioner dug out the depressional area and used a dragline to open up the creek from the depressional area downstream to the Wekiva River. At a point approximately 200 feet west of the Wekiva River, Petitioner dredged a wide area to construct a marina with access through the creek to the Wekiva River. In an effort to obtain a controlled flow of water, Petitioner contracted Dick Joyce of Dick Joyce Well Drilling Inc. to drill a well fourteen inches in diameter at a site along the bank of the depressional area designated by Petitioner. The well was drilled by Joyce in August of 1972. The well was drilled using a cable rig to a depth of 107 feet, with casing being driven to a depth of 58 feet. The drilling procedure excavated a hole in the ground, penetrated rock, and resulted in the flow of ground water to land surface. The top of the 14-inch well extends 4 to 5 feet above land surface. In a further effort to obtain a controlled flow of water, Petitioner subsequently contracted Central Florida Drillers to drill a second well, twenty- four (24) inches in diameter. This well was drilled in 1973 along the bank of the depressional area, at a spot identified by Petitioner, in the same general vicinity as the previously drilled 14-inch well. The well was also drilled using a cable rig to a depth of 120 feet with casing being driven to a depth of 84.7 feet. The drilling procedure excavated a hole in the ground, penetrated rock, and resulted in the flow of ground water to land surface. The top of the 24-inch well extends 5 feet above land surface. Central Florida Well Drillers Inc. prepared and maintained a driller's log of the 24-inch well, recording the composition of the stratigraphic column through which the drilling equipment passed. The lithology shown in the stratigraphic column is indicative of the geology normally found in a well drilled in this geographical area. The log shows penetration of the normal stratigraphic column for this area and does not show a spring bore that had been filed in by materials at an earlier date. The drilling of the two wells by Petitioner substantially altered the natural conditions on the property as they existed prior to 1972. The top of the Floridan aquifer in the geographical region in which Petitioner's wells are located is encountered at depths ranging from 50 to 100 feet below land surface. The amount of water flowing from the wells has been variously reported and calculated since the wells were installed. Petitioner's promotional materials, which bill the resort as home of the "world's largest flowing well," asserts the maximum free flow capacity to be 72 million gallons per day (mgd). At another point in time, flow from the larger well was said to be 28.8 mgd and the flow from the smaller well 11.5 mgd. Respondent's staff, in preparing its technical staff report, calculated the total flowage from the two wells to be 18 mgd. In his application for a permit to operate a public bathing facility filed with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Petitioner indicated the total flowage to be 16 mgd. For purposes of the determination to be made by this Order, the parties stipulated at the hearing to a total flowage figure of 12.47 mgd. Petitioner has operated and continues to operate the facility as a campground and water based recreational site. The central theme of the use of Petitioner's property is the recreational use of water. The water based recreation includes swimming, boating, tubing, and fishing, and is centered around the two flowing wells. The designated swimming area extends from a retaining wall located just west of the westernmost of the two wells to a footbridge which crosses Canoe Creek west of the Marina. The supply of water for recreational use comes primarily from the two wells. The stream which originally existed on the property and which carries runoff from the more western part of Petitioner's property and from off-site enters the designated swimming area at the retaining wall on its westernmost edge. The water which comes from this stream and which is introduced into the western end of the swimming area contains high levels of bacteria and coliforms. Between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Petitioner operates a sump pump which redirects this high coliform water eastward around a major portion of the swimming area to a point still within the swimming area. For the remaining twelve hours per day, this high bacteria, high coliform water is allowed to flow directly into the swimming area. Petitioner could reduce the level of bacteria and coliforms in the swimming area by simply operating the sump pump for 24 hours a day and/or introducing the water so pumped back into Canoe Creek at a point further downstream east of the designated swimming area. In addition, runoff from a storm drain which was constructed by Lake County, Florida, as a result of an easement granted to them by Petitioner, enters Canoe Creek at a point downstream from the wells but east of the footbridge, within the designated swimming area. When stormwater is conveyed through this storm drain, it also introduces coliforms into the swimming area at the point where the storm drain intersects Canoe Creek. The gate valves on each of the two wells are frozen in a completely open position. The wells are presently flowing at maximum capacity 24 hours a day without regard to whether the facility is being used or not. Petitioner does not presently have the capability to incrementally control the flow of water, short of utilizing a plug to completely shut off the flow of water from one or the other or both of the two wells. Petitioner does, however, have the capability of installing a hydraulic cylinder remote control system in the wells which would allow him to control the flow of water incrementally from the wells via a phone line. The use of Petitioner's facility varies by season, month, day of the week, and time of day, and according to weather conditions on a particular day. Although Petitioner did not have records available showing the number of persons utilizing a particular part of the facility for a particular purpose on a particular day, most of Petitioner's revenue, at least during the summer months, is generated by day use swimmers and picnickers. The swimming facility is most heavily used during daylight hours in the summer months. More customers use the swimming facilities on Saturday and Sunday than during the weekdays. Use is lower during the winter months and during times of inclement weather such as cloudy or rainy days. The evidence fails to show the average number of bathers who use Petitioner's facilities at any particular season or during any particular weather conditions. Petitioner holds a Swimming Pool-Bathing Place Operating Permit for the swimming area issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to Section 10D-5.120, Florida Administrative Code. Responsibility for enforcement of these administrative regulations is with the Lake County, Florida, Public Health Unit. Petitioner's permit allows him to have a maximum swimming pool population of 2000 bathers per day, but there is no evidence that he has ever had that many bathers on a single day since he received the permit. There are two primary water quality parameters which Petitioner is required to maintain within the swimming area, which are delineated in Rule 10D- 5.120, Florida Administrative Code. The first is a flow-through requirement of 500 gallons of water per anticipated bather per 24 hours. On a day when the swimming facility is being utilized by the maximum number of bathers allowable, 2000, the flow requirement for that day would then be one million gallons. For any day when the bathing population fell below 2000, the gallon flow-through requirement would be proportionately reduced. The second water quality parameter Petitioner is required to maintain relates to coliform densities. High coliform count can result in serious illness. The coliform density in the swimming area must not exceed 1000 most probable number of coliform organisms per 100 milliliters. Coliform levels in the swimming area at any given time are dependent upon several variable factors. Among these factors is the number of coliforms being introduced into the swimming area. As has previously been discussed, when the sump pump which reroutes high coliform water around the upper part of the swimming area is not operating, the number of coliforms would increase. Also during periods of rainfall, coliforms are washed into the swimming area in runoff which enters from overland and through the storm drain which enters the lower part of the swimming area. Temperature is a variable factor which affects coliform levels. As temperatures increase, bacteria multiply more rapidly, and thus coliform levels increase. The number of human beings utilizing the water at a given time impacts coliform levels in that, since humans are producers of coliforms, when greater numbers of humans are in the water, higher coliform levels would normally result. These factors coalesce in that high temperatures normally occur during the summer months which contain the days of most intense usage, and thus high coliform levels would be expected during these times if all other factors remain constant. Conversely, during the winter months, when facility usage is lowest and temperatures are lowest, lower coliform levels would be expected. One additional variable factor which affects coliform levels is the amount of water flowing through the swimming area. Water dilutes any contaminants or pollutants that come into the system. Petitioner attempted to show a correlation between rate of flow and coliform levels in excess of 1000 parts per 100 milliliters (ppm). (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) However, because the date collected did not control for and did not take into account the presence or non-presence of the variable factors which affect coliform levels, no conclusions could be reached regarding whether water quality could be maintained in the swimming area in accordance with HRS standards, with periodic adjustments to flow from the wells. No competent substantial evidence was offered to show that periodic adjustments to flow would prevent Petitioner from meeting HRS standards for water quality and therefore prevent Petitioner's continuing the operation of his public bathing facility. The original permit application filed by Petitioner only requested an allocation of 31.7 million gallons per year (mgy), this amount being only the water utilized for the campground. The construction of Petitioner's potable water supply for the campground was approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and meets all water quality standards applicable to the campground. Although the water used for the campground comes from a pipe connected to the 24-inch well, this request for water is not related to and does not account for the water which flows from the wells into the swimming area and out through Canoe Creek and is used for recreational purposes. The technical staff report (TSR) prepared by Respondent's staff recommends granting an allocation of 31.7 mgy of water to Petitioner for commercial and household uses (to supply the campground) and an allocation of 2.55 billion gallons per year (bgy) of water for recreational uses. The recommended allocation for recreational use breaks down to an average daily use of 7 million gallons per day (mgd), representing a 44 per cent reduction in the amount of water presently flowing from the wells for recreational purposes. The TSR further recommends a maximum daily use for any one day of the year of 18 million gallons of water. This recommendation actually exceeds the present production capacity of the wells. The TSR further recommends that the overall 44 per cent reduction in use of water for recreational purposes be achieved by adjustment of well discharges during non-use periods each day and seasonal non-use periods when bathing and marina use are minimal. This would require installation of operable valves on each of the wells as is also recommended in the TSR. Subject to the limitation imposed by the annual allocation and subject to the maximum daily allocation, Petitioner would make the flow adjustments as conditions warrant and as he sees fit. The Floridan aquifer in the region surrounding Petitioner's property is not expansive; thus there is a maximum amount of water which can be stored within it. Water will tend to discharge at some point within the system when flow is stopped at another point. The drawdown effect on the potentiometric head caused by the 24-inch well after flowing for a period of twenty-four hours can be calculated to extend up to two miles west of that well and further to the east. The excess water flowing through Petitioner's wells, over and above that required for recreational purposes, could be tapped and used by other potential consumers of water within the same vicinity, if Petitioner reduced the flow from his wells. Underlying the Floridan aquifer in the Wekiva River Basin Area is a layer of saline water, the degree of salinity being measured by the chloride concentrations in said water. This underlying saline water is relic sea water and is not salt water being pulled in from the oceans. When water is discharged from the Floridan aquifer and potentiometric pressures are thereby reduced, saline water is allowed to move upward and closer to the Floridan aquifer, resulting in higher chloride concentrations in the water discharged from the Floridan aquifer. The converse is also true. Reductions in discharge tend to increase potentiometric pressures which, in turn, would push the saline water further away from the Floridan aquifer. Chloride concentrations are the basic measurement of water quality. In measuring chloride concentrations in water, 250 milligrams of chloride per liter of water is the significant figure because this measuring point is the highest concentration of chloride that is recommended for public drinking water supplies. Data has been collected regarding chloride concentrations in water taken from the Floridan aquifer beneath the Wekiva River basin and shows significant changes during the period from 1973 to 1986. In a United States Geological Survey (USGS) study of water quality in the Floridan aquifer beneath the Wekiva River basin, conducted in 1973-74, an area or isochlor of water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 (ppm) was identified. Petitioner's wells were included in this study, and the chloride level in his wells was measured at 230 ppm. The isochlor depicting water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 ppm extended southward to a point north of Petitioner's property. A follow-up study begun in 1986 shows that the area or isochlor of water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 ppm has extended itself, moving southward to include and pass the Petitioner's wells, past the Lake County border line which lies to the south of Petitioner's property and into Orange County, Florida. In 1986 Petitioner's wells produced water which measured 296 ppm and 312 ppm respectively. Because the 1986 study was not complete as of the time of hearing, no clear determinations can be made as to the extent to which the Petitioner's wells have contributed to the southward migration of the 250 mg/1 of chloride base line. At a minimum, the withdrawals of water from Petitioner's wells is having a localized impact in the immediate vicinity of those wells. Reduction of the flows from Petitioner's wells would, at a minimum, result in an improvement in the chloride levels in a localized area. That improvement in conjunction with similar improvements at other wells in the area could ultimately result in a more regional improvement of the chloride levels. Because of the factors observed indicating a deterioration of the aquifer systems in the face of increased demand, Respondent's staff has created Special Condition Zones in an effort to identify areas within the Wekiva River basin where hydrologic conditions warrant concern and special attention. Zone One, in which Petitioner's property is located, is the area of greatest concern because of observed changes within the hydrologic regime. Special permit conditions have been created for these zones to insure that no more water than is needed for a specific purpose is allocated to any user in the area. The flows from Petitioner's wells provide a benefit to the Wekiva River by diluting the pollutants which flow into the river. The cascading water from the standpipes aerates the water, which in turn increases the oxygen levels which is of benefit to the invertebrates, fish, and other animals that live in the water. The flows from Petitioner's wells account for approximately six or seven per cent of the flow of the Wekiva River at the gauging station at State Road 46. Nevertheless, no persuasive competent substantial evidence was offered to show that an overall 44 per cent reduction in flow from Petitioner's wells would in any significant way impact the quality of water in the Wekiva River. The District staff recommended that numerous "standard general conditions" and numerous "other conditions" which relate specifically to this project be incorporated in Petitioner's CUP permit. Those conditions are set forth at length in Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them all here.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) should issue a consumptive use permit (CUP) in response to Application Number 99052 filed by the City of Titusville and, if so, what CUP terms are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Area II and III Wellfields On February 10, 1998, the District issued CUP 10647 to the City of Titusville, authorizing the withdrawal of an annual average of 6.5 mgd from the City's Area II and Area III Wellfields, 5.4 from Area II and 1.1 from Area III. These wellfields are owned and operated by the City and are located within its municipal boundaries. They produce water from the SAS. The Area II Wellfield is located near I-95 in the northeastern portion of the City and consists of shallow wells primarily constructed between 1955 and 2002. It consists of 53 production wells, of which 31 are considered to be of primary use. The City replaced 16 Area II production wells in 1995 and 4 production wells in 2000 and is currently considering the replacement of 4 additional wells. The Area III Wellfield is located in the south-central portion of the City’s service area. It consists of 35 production wells, of which 18 are considered to be of primary use. Petitioners contend that both the "safe yield" (the quantity of water the City can withdraw without degrading the water resource) and the "reliable yield" (the quantity of water the City can dependably withdraw) of the Area II and III Wellfields are the permitted limits of 5.4 and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The City and the District contend that saline intrusion into the SAS has reduced the safe and reliable yields to significantly less than the permitted amounts at this time. Historically, the Area II Wellfield was the most productive wellfield. Prior to 1988, the City relied entirely on the Area II Wellfield and pumped almost 5 mgd from it at times. Since then, several Area II wells have shown signs of water quality degradation that has resulted in a reduction in pumping to better stabilize water quality levels. For the past five years, the City has only pumped approximately 3 mgd on an annual average basis from the Area II Wellfield. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 16 Area II production wells. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 22 Area III production wells. About 10 wells in the Area II and III Wellfields have been abandoned because of water quality degradation. At the Area II Wellfields there are 10 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. At the Area III Wellfields there are 15 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. Area III has had serious chloride problems, with concentrations at or near 200 mg/l for much of the mid-90's. In the Area III Wellfield, the Anastasia wells have the best water quality. However, these wells have also seen increasing concentrations of chlorides, with one well over 200 mg/l. According to information introduced into evidence by the City, it appears that Area III began to have chloride problems primarily due to over-pumping.5 The City pumped far in excess of permit limits from Area III during the early 1990's, including almost twice the permit limit in 1990 and 1.5 times the limit in 1991. While chlorides were between 77 and 92 mg/l in 1990-92, they began to rise in 1993 and were between 192 and 202 mg/l for the rest of the decade. Area III production declined in 1997 to approximately 0.66 mgd and declined further to a low of approximately 0.5 mgd in 1999. In 2000, chlorides fell to approximately 138 mg/l and then rose to approximately 150 mg/l in 2002-04, while production gradually rose to close to the permit limit in 2002 and 2003, before dipping to 0.75 mgd in 2004. In 2005, production was back up to 1 mgd, and chlorides were approximately 87 mg/l. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped an annual average rate of approximately 1 mgd from Area III. In contrast, Area II has not been over-pumped during the same time period. Area II production generally declined from a high of 4.146 mgd in 1992 to a low of 2.525 mgd in 2000, except for an increase of approximately 0.25 mgd between 1997 and 1998. During this time, chlorides generally declined from a high of 124 mg/l in 1993 to approximately 68 mg/l in 2000, with the exception of a rise to approximately 111 mg/l in 1999. Area II production then generally increased through 2003 to approximately 3.000 mgd, where it remained in 2004 before declining to approximately 2.770 mgd in 2005. Area II chlorides were approximately 113 mg/l in 2001, 109 in 2002, 86 in 2003, 76 in 2004, and 83 in 2005. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped only an annual average rate of 2.86 mgd. In 1995, the City entered into a contract with the City of Cocoa requiring the City to pay for at least 1 mgd each year, whether the City actually takes the water or not (the "take-or-pay" clause). Using the Cocoa water allowed the City to reduce production from Area III without a corresponding increase in production from Area II. Water conservation measures implemented since 1998, including conservation rates, have since reduced per capita water use. In 2002, the contractual take-or-pay requirement was reduced to 0.5 mgd. After 2002, purchases of Cocoa water have amounted to 0.576, 0.712, and 0.372 mgd on an annual average basis. As a result, since at least 1990 Area II has not been required to produce at its permitted limit. It is not clear exactly what the City believes to be safe and reliable yields at this time from Areas II and III. In its PRO, the City took the position that the total reliable yield is 3.5 to 4 mgd, of which 2.25 to 2.5 mgd is attributable to the Area II Wellfield and 0.75 mgd is attributable to the Area III Wellfield. However, its consultant, Mr. Patrick Barnes, testified that the City's current reliable yields are 3 mgd from Area II and 1 or 1.1 mgd from Area III. He testified that the safe yield from Area II would be approximately 3.5 mgd. The District has not formulated an opinion as to the exact of amount of water that can be produced from the Area II and III Wellfields on a sustainable basis. However, the District believes that recent production levels, which have resulted in a stabilization of chloride concentrations, may be the most production that can be sustained from these facilities without adverse water resource impacts. That would mean approximately 4.5 mgd on an annual average basis from Areas II and III combined. It might be possible for the City to expand the reliable yield of the Area II Wellfield by constructing additional wells or through some other measures. But Brevard County’s North Brevard Wellfield, located immediately north of the City’s Area II Wellfield, utilizes the same SAS used by the Area II Wellfield, and Brevard County recently received an increased permitted allocation from the District for this facility. This would limit the City’s ability to expand the current production of water from the Area II Wellfield. Other limitations on expansion of production from Areas II and III include: the relatively high risk of contamination of the SAS from pollution sources such as underground petroleum storage tanks; the limited space available in an increasingly urbanized area for the construction of new wells; the chronic bio-fouling and encrustation of wells due to the high iron content of the SAS; and the low specific capacity of each production well. For these reasons, it is not clear at this point in time whether it is possible to sustain more water production from Areas II and III than the City has pumped in recent years. B. Area IV Application and TSR On March 6, 2001, the City of Titusville submitted its application to modify CUP 10647. Included in this application was a proposal to add a new Area IV Wellfield in northwest Brevard County to pump up to 2.75 mgd from the UFAS. The District issued a series of seven Requests for Additional Information in between April 5, 2001, and March 23, 2004. On December 15, 2004, the District issued its initial TSR for the CUP modification application. That TSR proposed to authorize the use of 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield and 3.3 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the existing Area II and Area III Wellfields to serve a projected population of 56,565 in 2008. There was no request to extend or renew the permit, which expires February 10, 2008. Miami Corporation filed a petition challenging this TSR. On May 13, 2005, the City submitted a revised application for a separate Individual CUP for the Area IV Wellfield, rather than modifying its existing CUP 10647 to include the new wellfield, with a permit expiration of December 31, 2010. On May 25, 2005, the staff issued a revised TSR. That TSR proposed a new permit to authorize up to 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and 0.178 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield to serve a projected population of 59,660 in 2010. The revised TSR noted that the proposed permit expiration date for the Area II and Area III Wellfields would remain February 10, 2008. Vergie Clark filed a petition challenging the revised TSR, as did Miami Corporation. After various notices on the TSR and the revised TSR to interested persons in Brevard County, in August 2005 the District issued additional notice to interested persons in Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties. As a result, all required public notices have been issued. On March 14, 2006, the City again revised its application, and on May 1, 2006, the District issued its second revised, and final, TSR--which is the TSR now at issue. The TSR at issue recommended that a CUP be issued to Titusville for 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and .18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS for wetland hydration and aquifer recharge from the Area IV Wellfield on an annual average basis to serve a projected population of 63,036 in 2010. This TSR provided that the proposed permit would expire December 31, 2010. TSR at Issue Water Use Allocation The CUP recommended by the TSR would only grant the City a water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield for 2009 and 2010. The recommended CUP would allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield at an annual average rate of 2.75 mgd during those years for public supply. (Other Condition 4) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 3.85 mgd during the four consecutive months of the dry season, which can occur during any time of the year. If 3.85 mgd is withdrawn during this four-month period, the withdrawal rate for the remaining 8 months cannot exceed 2.21 mgd. (Other Condition 8) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 4.41 mgd during any single month. (Other Condition 7) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 6.5 mgd during any single day during a severe drought, when the existing sources (meaning Areas II and III) cannot be used without inducing water quality degradation or exceeding permitted quantities. (Other Condition 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would allow the City to withdraw water from the SAS extraction wells at an annual average rate of up to 0.178 mgd in 2009 and 2010 for wetland hydration and surficial aquifer recharge. (Other Condition 6) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined annual average rate of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and a combined annual average rate of 6.01 mgd in 2010. The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined maximum daily rate of 8.88 mgd in 2009 and 9.0 mgd in 2010. (Other Conditions 5, 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would reduce Titusville's combined annual average and maximum daily allocations from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields in 2009 and 2010 by an amount equivalent to the quantity of water purchased from the City of Cocoa during each year. (Other Conditions 5, 9) Other Condition 10 in the recommended by the TSR notifies the City that nonuse of the water supply allocated by the CUP for two years or more is grounds for revocation by the District's Governing Board, permanently and in whole, unless the City can prove that its nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the City's control. Permit Duration The CUP recommended by the TSR would not allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield earlier than January 1, 2009; as indicated, it would expire on December 31, 2010. (Other Conditions 2, 4). Saline Water Intrusion The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed saline water monitoring plan by sampling and analyzing Saline Water Monitor Wells SWMW 1-6 and UFAS production wells 401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413 and 415 quarterly for water levels, chloride and total dissolved solids. (Other Condition 11) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to modify the allocation granted to the City in whole or in part or to otherwise curtail or abate the impact in the event of saline water intrusion. (Other Condition 14) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to cease withdrawal from any UFAS production well, if any quarterly water sample from that well shows a chloride concentration exceeding 250 mg/l. That same condition would limit the operation of any UFAS production well with a quarterly sample exceeding 250 mg/l to six hours per day with a minimum 24 hours recovery between pumping cycles if subsequent samples contain chloride concentrations between 200 mg/l and 249 mg/l. (Other Condition 25) Environmental Impacts and Avoidance and Minimization The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed environmental monitoring plan for hydrologic and photo- monitoring at 16 wetland sites within one year of permit issuance and to establish a baseline prior to the initiation of groundwater withdrawals. That same condition requires the City to collect water level data at each wetland site either on a daily or weekly basis and report to the District every six months in District-approved, computer-accessible format. (Other Condition 12) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to revoke the permit in whole or in part or to curtail or abate impacts should unanticipated adverse impacts occur to wetlands, lakes and spring flow. (Other Condition 23) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require the City to implement the proposed avoidance and minimization plan should unanticipated impacts occur to Wetland A4-2 (a shallow marsh near the middle of the wellfield) within 90 days of notice by the District. That same permit condition authorizes the District to require the City to submit a wetland rehydration plan for any other adversely affected wetland within 30 days of notice by the District and to implement the plan without 90 days of approval by the District. The District would require the City to implement avoidance measures before the wetlands are actually allowed to suffer adverse impacts. (Other Condition 24) Impacts to Other Existing Legal Users of Water The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require mitigation of any unanticipated interference to existing legal users of water due to withdrawals from the Area IV Wellfield. Mitigation may include installation of a new pump or motor, installation of additional drop pipe, new electrical wiring, connection with an existing water supply system, or other appropriate measures. (Other Condition 15) Water Conservation Measures and Reuse The City is implementing extensive water conservation measures. The City’s water conservation plan includes public education measures (e.g., televised public service announcements, helping to create water conservation videos and distributing them to the public, commissioning an award winning native plant mural, providing exhibits and speakers for public events), toilet and showerhead retrofits, and a water conservation based rate structure. A water conservation rate structure provides the potable water customer with an economic incentive to use less water. The most common conservation rate structure is a tiered-rate whereby the cost per gallon of water increases as the customer uses more water. While the District reviews the rate structure to evaluate whether it will achieve conservation, it does not mandate the cost per gallon of water. An audit of the City’s potable water distribution system was conducted and recent water use records were evaluated to determine if all necessary water conservation measures were in place. The audit indicated that the potable water system has small unaccounted-for water losses, approximately 6.5 percent, and relatively low residential per capita water use. The City has implemented a water conservation plan that implements rule requirements; as a result, the City has provided reasonable assurance that it is implementing all available water conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. The City cannot use reclaimed water to meet its potable water demands associated with direct human consumption and food preparation. However, reclaimed water can be used to replace that part of the City’s allocation that is associated with irrigation-type uses. The City has operated a reclaimed water reuse system since 1996. It is projected that 67 percent of the available wastewater flows will be utilized by 2010 for irrigation, with the remainder going to a wetland system during wet weather periods when irrigation demands are low. The City is using reclaimed water to the extent it is economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. In the case of public supply, the District looks to the amount of water requested for each person in a projected population in determining whether the water will be used efficiently. The metric that the District normally considers when conducting this part of the evaluation is the per capita usage. Population Projections and Per Capita Water Use As indicated, the proposed CUP would expire on December 31, 2010. Although the City and District would anticipate an application for renewal to be filed, demand for water projected beyond December 31, 2010, is not relevant to the need for the proposed CUP. In the case of public supply, projected demand for water usually is calculated by multiplying the projected population times per capita water use. Gross per capita (“GPC”) use in gallons per day (gpd) is the type of metric normally used to project demand for public supply of water. It is based on residential use and all other water uses supplied by the utility, including commercial, industrial, hotel/motel, and other type uses. That includes supply necessary to meet peak demands and emergencies. DEP requires that every public water supply system have an adequate water supply to meet peak demands for fire protection and health and safety reasons. If peak demands are not met, a major fire or other similar catastrophe could depressurize a public water system and possibly cause water quality problems. Projections of need for water in the future must take into account peak demands and emergency needs. Water used for those purposes is included in the historical average daily flows (ADF) from which historical GPC is derived. Unless there is good information to the contrary, in projecting GPC one assumes that those uses will increase roughly in proportion to the residential use. City's Projection Contending that the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) does not estimate or project population for municipalities, and that BEBR projections are based on historical trends that would under-project population in the City, the City used a different source and method to project population in the City's water service area on December 31, 2010. For its method, the City had Courtney Harris, its Planning Director, project the number of dwelling units that would be developed and occupied in 2011, calculating the additional people associated with each unit (based on the 2000 Census, which identified 2.32 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City), and adding the resulting number to the City’s existing service area population as of 2005. The City's method yielded various results depending on when proposed developments in the City were reviewed. Ultimately, the City projected a population of 60,990 at the end of 2010. The City's method depends on the ability of its Planning Director to accurately predict the timing of new residential construction and sales, which is not easy to do (as indicated by the different results obtained by the City over time), since there are many factors affecting residential development and the real estate market. The ultimate predictions of the City's Planning Director assume that residential development will continue at an extraordinarily high pace although there already was evidence of downturn. The City's method also assumed that all new units will be sold (which, again, is contingent on market conditions) and fully occupied (although a 90 percent occupancy rate would be a more realistic.) The method also does not account for decreases in population in a number of areas in the Titusville service area (while overall population increased, mostly as a result of growth that has been occurring in a single census tract.) The City's witnesses then calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the 11 years from 1995 through 2005, which resulted in projected per capita water use rate of 100.35, and a projected demand of 6.12 mgd at the end of 2010. The justification for averaging over 11 years, instead of the last five years, was that the last five years have been unusually wet, which would depress demand to some extent. However, using 11 years also increased the average water use by taking into account the higher use rates common before conservations measures, including conservation rates, went into effect (in particular, 123.75 gpd for 1995, 122.36 gpd for 1996, and 109.94 gpd for 1998.) Since 1998, and implementation of the conservation rates and other measures, water use rates have been significantly lower. While the average over the last 11 years was 100.35 gpd, the average over the last five years (from 2001- 2005) was just 92.15 gpd. Averaged since 1998, the City's water use rate has been 93.34 gpd. While wetter-than-normal conditions would be expected to depress water use to some extent due primarily to decreased lawn irrigation, many of the City's water customers have private irrigation wells for this purpose. Besides, Mr. Peterson, the City's Water Resources Manager, testified that not many of the City's water customers use potable water for lawn irrigation due to the new conservation rates. Petitioners' Projection Miami Corporation's population expert, Dr. Stanley Smith, is the Director of BEBR. Dr. Smith projected the population for the City's service area by first developing an estimate of the population of the water service area in 1990 and 2000 using block and block group data, and then using those estimates to create estimates from 2001-2005. Dr. Smith then projected population in the City's water service area using a methodology similar to what BEBR uses for county projections. Dr. Smith's methodology used three extrapolation techniques. He did not use a fourth technique, often used at BEBR, called shift-share, because he believed that, given Titusville's pattern of growth, using shift-share might produce projections that were too low. In developing his final projections, Dr. Smith also excluded the data from 1990 to 2000 because growth during that period was so slow that he felt that its inclusion might result in projections that were too low. Dr. Smith's approach varied slightly from the typical BEBR methodology in order to account for the fact that the City's growth has been faster since 2000. Dr. Smith applied an adjustment factor based on an assumption also used by the City's expert that 97.3 percent of the projected population within the City's water service area in 2010 would be served by the City. Using his method, Dr. Smith projected the population of the Titusville water service area to be 53,209 on December 31, 2010. Based on recent population estimates, Dr. Smith believes that, if anything, his projections are too high. It was Dr. Smith's opinion from the data that the annual increases for Titusville and the Titusville water service area peaked in 2003 and that they had been declining since that time. That was especially true of 2006, when the increase was the smallest that it had been for many years. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Drake, calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the most recent five years (2002-2006), which resulted in a per capita water use rate of 89.08 gpd, and a projected demand of 4.74 mgd at the end of 2010. He also calculated a per capita water use rate for 2006, which came to 88.65 gpd, which would give a slightly lower projected demand of 4.72 mgd. Ultimate Finding of Projected Water Demand Based on all the evidence, it is found that Dr. Smith's projection of the population that will use City water on December 31, 2010, is more reasonable than the City's projections. The City and District contend that, regardless of the calculated per capita water use rate, it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a rate of 100.35 gpd because 90 to 100 gpd is very conservative per capita water use rate for a public water supply utility. However, the allocation should be based on the best estimate of actual demand, not a general rate commonly assumed for water utilities, even if conservative. The City and District also contend that it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a higher use rate because the climatic conditions experienced in the City over what they considered to be the most recent five years (2001- 2005) have been average-to-wet. More rainfall generally means less water use, and vice-versa, but the greater weight of the evidence proved that the City's demand for water has not varied much due to climatic conditions in recent years (after implementation of conservation measures, including conservation rates.) (City Exhibit 19, which purported to demonstrate the contrary, was proven to be inaccurate in that it showed significantly more water use during certain drier years than actually occurred.) However, in 2000--which was after the implementation of conservation rates and also the City's driest year on record (in approximately 75 years)--the water use rate was approximately 97.5 gallons per person per day. An average of the last eight years (1999-2006), which would include all years clearly responsive to the conservation rates as well as the driest year on record, would result in a per capita water use rate of approximately 92.8 gpd, and a projected demand of approximately 4.94 mgd by December 31, 2010. The District argues in its PRO that, because a CUP water allocation is a legal maximum, it would be inappropriate to base the City's water allocation on demand during a wet or even an average year (which, it says, would set the permittee up to violate its permit requirements 50 percent of the time). If, instead, the City's water allocation were based on demand during 2000, the driest year on record, projected demand would be approximately 5.2 mgd on December 31, 2010. Those calculated water allocations--i.e., either the 4.94 mgd or the 5.2 mgd--would then be compared to the probable safe and reliable yield of 4.5 mgd from Areas II and III to determine the deficit on an annual average basis. Allowing a reasonable margin of error for the uncertainties of the predictions involved, a reasonable maximum annual average allocation for the proposed Area IV Wellfield would be 0.75 mgd. Mr. Jenkins suggested in rebuttal that, if the need for water is less than that set out in the proposed CUP in the TSR at issue, a CUP should nonetheless be issued but with lower water allocations. While the evidence supports a reduction of the annual average limit from 2.75 mgd to 0.75 mgd, there was insufficient evidence to show how the other water allocation limits in the proposed CUP should be changed. For the past 12 years, the City of Titusville has been able to purchase water under a contract with the City of Cocoa to meet all of its demands, including any peak or emergency water demands. Under the take-or-pay provision in the contract currently in effect, the City must pay for 0.5 mgd and presumably would take and use at least that amount so long as the contract remains in effect. This would reduce the City's projected water supply deficit through the end of 2010, and the City could rely on the Cocoa contract to cover any additional demand through the end of 2010 without Area IV. However, under the contract, the City can give notice on or before April 1 of the year in which it intends to terminate the contract effective October 1 of the same year. If a CUP for Area IV is issued, the City could terminate the current contract effective as early as October 1, 2008. It also is possible that the contract could be negotiated so that its termination would coincide with the time when the Area IV Wellfield becomes operational if not near October 1 of the year. As indicated, even if the contract remains in place, to the extent that the City receives water from the City of Cocoa for potable use during either 2009 or 2010, the allocations under the proposed TSR will be reduced an amount equivalent to the quantity provided to the City by Cocoa in that year. Finally, as indicated, the existing CUP for Areas II and III is set to expire in February 2008. Although it is anticipated that the City will apply to renew the existing CUP for Areas II and III, and that the District will approve a renewal at some level, it is not clear how much production will be approved for Areas II and III for the years 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, the CUP proposed for Area IV provides that the combined annual groundwater withdrawals for public supply for the Areas II, III, and IV may not exceed 5.79 mgd for 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. Based on the findings in this case, those figures should be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd, and it must be anticipated that a similar condition would be placed on any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III as well. Site Investigation At the time the City decided to apply for a CUP for Area IV, it was known that the UFAS in much of Brevard County was not suitable as a source of potable water supply, but there was believed to be a tongue of the UFAS in the northwest corner of the County and extending towards the southeast, and narrowing in that direction, that might be suitable for that purpose, particularly in the upper part of the aquifer. Because there was insufficient information to adequately evaluate the whether proposed Area IV, which was located along the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Right-of-Way (ROW), could be used for that purpose, the City’s consultant, Barnes, Ferland and Associates (BFA), designed a drilling and testing program to collect site-specific information in order to characterize the groundwater quality, identify the thickness of the freshwater zone in the UFAS, and determine hydraulic parameters for the groundwater system. In addition, DRMP conducted an environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield and surrounding property. The drilling and testing program designed by BFA for the Area IV Wellfield was similar to other hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the region with respect to wellfields operated by the City of Edgewater, the City of New Smyrna Beach, the City of Ormond Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission and Orange County. The drilling and testing program for the Area IV Wellfield included Time-Domain Electromagnetic Mapping ("TDEM") performed by SDII Global, a consultant retained by the District. TDEM is not typically used for the hydrogeologic investigation of a new wellfield. The TDEM technique involves estimating the depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentration in the groundwater system using electrical resistivity probes. The technique was applied at four locations along the FEC Right-of- Way. In addition to the TDEM study, BFA installed three test production wells along the FEC ROW, collected lithologic samples with depth, performed borehole aquifer performance and step drawdown tests at two test sites and recorded water quality with depth through grab and packer samples. The northernmost test production well was Test Site 1, which corresponds to Area IV production well 401. The middle test production well was Test Site 3, which corresponds to either Area IV Well 412 or Area IV Well 413. The southernmost test production well was Test Site 2, which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 1 and 2 were constructed first and Test Site 3 was drilled later because of unfavorable water quality conditions encountered at Test Site 2. Test Site 1 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 430 feet southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 1, BFA installed a test-production well (UF-1D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-1S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-1) in 2001. In 2005 BFA installed two additional SAS monitor wells (MW-1 and RW-1) near Test Site 1. The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 250 feet below land surface and cased to a depth of 105-110 feet below land surface. Test Site 2 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 2, BFA installed a single UFAS Monitor Well (UF-2S). The monitor well was drilled to a total depth of 210-220 feet below land surface. Test Site 3 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the Brevard-Volusia County line. At Test Site 3, BFA installed a test production well (UF-3D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-3S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-3). The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 210 below land surface.. Since Test Site 3 is either Area IV Well 412 or 413, and assuming production well 415 will be located 1,200 feet southeast of Test Site 3, this means that Test Site 2 is located at least one mile southeast of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 4 and 6 are located approximately three miles southeast of Brevard-Volusia County line. SAS test production wells were constructed at both sites to a total depth of about 20-30 feet below land surface. The site-specific hydrogeologic data collected by BFA as part of the drilling and testing program verified the groundwater basin and flow direction shown in Figure 15 of City Exhibit 523. DRMP’s environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield spanned the period from 2002 through 2006. In Spring 2002, DRMP evaluated areas within the predicted 0.2 foot drawdown contour by assessing wetland vegetation, photographing wetlands, noting wetland hydrologic conditions, investigating soil condition and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Fall 2002, DRMP evaluated potential monitoring sites both on and off Miami Corporation's property by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and locating suitable control sites. In Fall 2003, DRMP evaluated potential wetland monitoring sites near the southernmost Area IV production wells by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2005, DRMP assessed wetlands surrounding the Area IV Wellfield by evaluating wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and collecting GPS points. In Fall 2005, DRMP investigated the Clark property by evaluating wetland vegetation and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2006, DRMP developed a revised environmental monitoring plan and avoidance and minimization plan based on the new SDI MODFLOW Model by locating the final wetlands monitoring sites, developing the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring protocol, establishing the scope of the baseline study, reviewing the preliminary pipeline routing, construction and discharge inlet structures and preparing and submitting plan documents to the District. DRMP evaluated the occurrence of listed animal and plant species in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the Natural Areas Inventory for the Area IV Wellfield site, which identifies occurrences of listed species within a designated area. Additionally, DRMP made note of animal and plant species during the site visits in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. DRMP evaluated the Farmton Mitigation Bank as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the permit files for the Farmton Mitigation Banks, including the annual environmental monitoring reports prepared by Miami’s consultants. In 2005, DRMP conducted a field assessment of the Clark property including a thorough investigation of the fish pond, which Petitioners claim was adversely impacted during one or more of the APTs conducted by the City at the Area IV Wellfield. It was not necessary for the City’s environmental consultants to visit each and every wetland in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield. Typically, only representative wetland sites are visited during the environmental assessment process. The scope of the City's hydrologic and environmental investigation of the Area IV Wellfield was adequate and consistent with industry standards and the District protocol for testing aquifers and characterizing aquifer performance and groundwater quality at the site. Nonetheless, Petitioners contend that there were serious deficiencies in the investigation's implementation and that additional investigation should have been performed. Hydrostratigraphy The SAS at the Area IV Wellfield is 40-to-50 feet deep and is composed primarily of unconsolidated sand, shell and silt. The intermediate confining unit (ICU) at the Area IV Wellfield consists of the Hawthorne Group and ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 feet. The top of the ICU is located 40- 50 feet below land surface and the bottom of the ICU is located 100 feet below land surface. This unit is composed of varying amounts of sand, shell, silt, indurated sandstone, clay, and some limestone. It tends to restrict the movement of water from the SAS to the UFAS. The UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is a fairly homogenous limestone unit, which starts approximately 100 feet below land surface and extends to about 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. It consists of the Ocala Group and grades into the upper portion of the Avon Park Formation. The middle confining unit (MCU) at the Area IV Wellfield starts at approximately 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level and ends approximately 1,000 feet below land surface. It comprises a denser, fine-grained dolomitic limestone within the Avon Park Formation. The MCU restricts the movement of water between the UFAS and LFAS. The location of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield was determined by examining cuttings and video logs collected during drilling performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. The MCU can be distinguished from the UFAS by the presence of both dolomite and limestone. The lithologic log for Test Site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. The lithologic log for Test Site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. After examining the video log for Test Site 1, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Thomas Missimer, noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface. Other characteristics of the MCU are a lower resistivity and a sharp decrease in flow. The data collected at Test Site 1 shows a reduction in resistivity at approximately 470 feet below land surface. The flow meter log for Test Site 1 exhibits a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. Petitioners’ experts, Thomas Missimer, Alge Merry, and Bruce Lafrenz contend that the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield is located deeper than 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. This contention is based on regional reports, the geophysical logs reported by BFA, and one of the packer tests conducted at the bottom of the test wells that showed a pumping rate of 85 gpm. The greater weight of evidence indicates the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield starts at the elevation identified by BFA. The regional reports are not based on data collected from the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. Additionally, the BFA's professional geologists who determined the top of the MCU included Joel Kimrey, who was the former head of the local USGS office, and had more experience with the hydrogeology of the MCU in Brevard and Volusia than any of the Petitioners’ geologic experts. Also, the BFA geologists had access to the drill cuttings, which were unavailable to the Petitioners’ experts when they made their determination. Finally, the pumping rate recorded during the packer test could be explained by an area of higher permeability within the MCU. More likely, the packer may have been partially open to the bottom of the UFAS. The Lower Floridan Aquifer System (LFAS) starts at about 1,000 feet below land surface and ends approximately 2,300 feet below land surface. Head Difference Data Head refers to the pressure within an aquifer. In an unconfined aquifer, it is the water table. In a confined or semi-confined aquifer, it is the level to which water would rise in a well penetrating into the aquifer. Head difference refers to the numerical difference between two water levels either in different aquifer at the same location or different locations in the same aquifer. In the context of the Area IV Wellfield, static head difference is the difference between the elevation of the water table in the SAS and the elevation of the potentiometric surface of the UFAS under non-pumping conditions at the same location. The static head difference reflects the degree of confinement in the ICU. If the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS is a large number, this indicates a high degree of confinement between the two systems. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006 and calculated the head difference based on those measurements. District expert, Richard Burklew, was present when the measurements were taken in April 2004 and July 2006 and verified the readings made by the City’s consultants. During all three sampling events a downward head gradient was noted at each site, which means the water table had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. Finally, in July 2006, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of those observed head differences was 7.46 feet. At the time the head difference measurements were taken in July 2006, the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the prior 12 months. Petitioners contend that the rainfall deficit may have skewed that head difference observation. However, according to the District’s expert, Richard Burklew, this would not necessarily have affected the head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium, and the head difference would be the same. BFA collected static head difference measurements from Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 during both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons. Head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations also do not show significant differences between seasons. This suggests that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. Water level measurements taken by the City’s consultants from the wells on Clark’s property and reported in City Exhibit 52 do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because the exact construction of the wells was unknown, the completion depth of certain wells was unknown, the operational history of the wells was unknown, and the putative SAS well was located several hundred feet away from the UFAS well. For example, the depth of one of the wells is reported as 57 feet, which could easily be located in the ICU. If that is the case, then the head difference measured by comparing to the water level in this well would only be the head differential between the ICU and the UFAS. Finally, the Clark property is located in a more elevated region than Test Sites 1, 2, and 3, which means the water table will be lower and the head difference will be less than at the Area IV Wellfield. Water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 on Miami Corporation’s property do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because critical information concerning the construction of these wells is unknown. Additionally, the wells are much shallower than test production wells at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 are not necessarily inconsistent with head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The head differences at these four well sites could be 6, 4, 7, and 6 feet, respectively, depending how the water measurements were made. Also, the measurements made by a driller could not be expected to be as accurate as measurements made by trained hydrologists. Further, if the soils in the vicinity of Well 4177 indicated a depth to water table of 5 feet below land surface, that would not necessarily be inconsistent with the head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. Depth to Water Table The depth to water table is defined as the difference between the land surface elevation and the head value in the SAS. The water table in the Area IV Wellfield area is consistently close to land surface and often above land surface. The construction of numerous above-grade forest roads and roadside ditches on the property surrounding the Area IV Wellfield has had the effect of impounding surface water and raising the water table near land surface. The Area IV Wellfield and vicinity have a variety of soil types. The predominant wetland soil type is Samsula Muck, which is classified as a very poorly drained soil with a water table either at or above land surface. The predominant upland soil type is Myakka Fine Sand, which is characterized by a water table within a foot of land surface during four months of the year and within 40 inches of land surface during remainder of the year. The average depth to water table at the Area IV Wellfield is approximately 1 foot based on soil types. SAS levels at the three Farmton Mitigation Banks were measured at piezometers installed by Miami Corporation’s consultants from 2001 through 2005. This data confirms the water table at the Area IV Wellfield is consistently close to land surface and frequently above land surface. It indicates the depth to water table is typically less than 3 feet and in many cases within a foot or two. Also, it does not matter whether any of the piezometers were located near wetlands because they show seasonal variation in water levels, where the water table changes from slightly above land surface to below land surface over the course of a year. A water table depth of 6-14 feet below land surface is not realistic at the Area IV Wellfield based on soil conditions and vegetation communities. Such a depth to water would be indicative of a landscape composed primarily of xeric scrub communities with few, if any wetlands. These types of communities do not exist near the Area IV Wellfield. Aquifer Performance Tests The flow of water through an aquifer is determined by three primary hydraulic coefficients or parameters: transmissivity; storage; and leakance. An aquifer performance test (APT) is a pumping test where water is removed from the well at a set rate for a set period of time and drawdown is measured in the well and in neighboring monitor wells to calculate the hydraulic properties of the hydrologic formation. The main hydraulic properties determined through an APT are transmissivity, leakance, and storativity. These properties are used to characterize the water production capabilities of the hydrologic formations. These properties are also used in groundwater modeling to project impacts for longer periods of time and larger distances. Aquifer parameters can be determined from an aquifer performance test using analytical "curve-matching" techniques or a groundwater flow model such as MODFLOW. Curve-matching techniques involve the creation of a curve through measurement of drawdown and the matching of that curve to standard curves derived using analytical equations. Hydraulic conductivity or “K” is the term used to describe the ability of a hydrogeologic unit to conduct fluid flow. It is usually expressed in terms of horizontal hydraulic conductivity or “Kx” and “Ky” and vertical hydraulic conductivity or “Kz.” Transmissivity is the term used to describe the rate of movement of water for a given thickness of a hydrogeologic unit. It is the hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer times its thickness. Storativity is the term used to describe the amount of water that is released from any aquifer for a given unit change in head, or the compressability of the aquifer system. This value can normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Specific yield is the term used to describe the long- term capacity of an aquifer to store water. This value cannot normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Leakance is the term used to describe the vertical movement of water from above or below a given unit in response to changes in head or pumpage. APTs are standard practice for evaluating the suitability of a new area for development as a wellfield. Three APTs were conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. No aquifer performance tests were conducted at Test Site 2. Petitioners question whether the APTs for the Area IV Wellfield were conducted by BFA in accordance with the applicable standard of care in the hydrogeologic profession. The District’s expert, Richard Burklew, believes the three APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were adequate for purposes of determining appropriate aquifer parameters. Two APTs were conducted by BFA at Test Site 1. The first test was conducted on January 30-31, 2001, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 44-48 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. The second test was conducted on April 8-12, 2003, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 96 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day and a storativity of about 0.00036 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. They were unable to calculate a leakance value because the drawdown data did not reasonably fit the curve- matching techniques. For that reason, BFA performed another APT at Test Site 1 in 2003. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.00045, and a leakance of 0.00029 day-1 on the basis of the 2003 APT at Test Site 1. One APT was conducted by BFA at Test Site 3 on April 10-13, 2001. Well UF-3D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 70 hours, and Wells UF-3S and SA-3 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,450 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.0002, and a leakance of 0.00026 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. However, because of problems with the test, leakance was not considered a good match for the analytical techniques. Leakance values determined by BFA from the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were based on the application of analytical curve-matching techniques. The leakance values determined through the conventional type curve-matching techniques employed by BFA are typically higher than the actual leakance values. They are also inherently limited because they assume the calculated leakance is due entirely to the ICU rather than a combination of the ICU and MCU as is the case at the Area IV Wellfield. The analytical techniques employed by BFA were unable to calculate separate leakance values for the ICU and the MCU. The best way to determine leakance values for each of these confining units was to use a MODFLOW model and observed head difference data. This was done by the City’s consultant, SDI, and is described in greater detail, infra. In January 2004, several APTs were conducted using two SAS wells referred to as Test Sites 4 and 6. These test sites are located more than 3 miles from the Clark property. Constant rate and variable rate APTs were conducted at both sites. During the constant rate tests, 230 gpm or about 0.33 mgd was pumped from the SAS well. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 2,500 ft2/day for the surficial aquifer at those locations. Water Quality Data Consistent with the general understanding of the freshwater groundwater tongue extending from Volusia into Brevard County, the TDEM performed by SDII Global indicated that the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations decrease as one proceeds south along the FEC ROW. For example, the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 442 feet and 542 feet, respectively, at the northernmost test site, which is somewhat north of the City’s Test Site 1. The depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 406 feet and 506 feet, respectively, at the southernmost test site, which is somewhat south of the City’s Test Site 2. Sixteen water quality grab samples were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 1 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. This type of sampling is referred to as drill-stem testing. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 480 feet below land surface were 59 mg/l and 879 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 460 feet below land surface was reached. Six water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests) were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 2 was drilled, beginning 120 feet below land surface and ending 210 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 210 feet below land surface were 124 mg/l and 845 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 180 feet below land surface. Fourteen water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests), were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 3 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 500 feet below land surface were 45 mg/l and 90 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples never exceeded 90 mg/l. A packer test is a procedure used to isolate a particular well interval for testing. It is performed using an inflatable packer on the drill stem, which is placed at the interval to be blocked. The packer is inflated with water or air to isolate the interval to be sampled. A packer test can be used to collect water samples for analysis. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 1. At the interval of 331-355 feet below land surface one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 672 mg/l. At the interval of 331-400 feet below land surface, one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 882 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 442-500 feet below land surface two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 2,366 mg/l and 2,2712 mg/l. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 3At the interval of 270-295 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 74 mg/l and 450 mg/l. At the interval of 340-400 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 445-500 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 1,458 mg/l and 2,010 mg/l. No packer test samples were collected at Test Site 2, where it was clear that water quality was too poor to be used as a fresh groundwater source. The packer test samples collected at Test Sites 1 and 3 were collected using a higher pumping rate than typically recommended by the DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consequently, the chloride concentrations in these samples are probably higher than the chloride concentrations found in the undisturbed groundwater at those depths. Since the packer sits on top of the borehole and restricts flow from above, it generally is reasonable to assume that a packer test draws more water from below than from above the packer. However, if transmissivity is significantly greater just above the packer, it is possible that more water could enter the packer from above. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab sample were 59 mg/l and 58 mg/l, respectively. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 19 mg/l and 52 mg/l, respectively. Nine water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2003 aquifer performance test at Test Site The field-measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 56 mg/l and 55 mg/l, respectively. The laboratory measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 66 mg/l and 74 mg/l, respectively. The average chloride concentration for the water samples collected during the three APTs at Test Sites 1 and 2 was about 50 mg/l. Water is composed of positively charged analytes (cations) and negatively charged analytes (anions). When cations predominate over anions, the water is said to have a positive charge balance; when anions predominate over cations, the water is said to have a negative charge balance. Theoretically, a sample of water taken from the groundwater system should have a charge balance of zero. However, in real life this does not occur because every sample contains some small trace elements that affect its charge balance. Therefore, in the field of hydrogeology, a positive or negative charge balance of 10 percent or less is accepted as a reasonable charge balance error, and this standard has been incorporated in the permit conditions recommended by the District for the City’s permit. With one exception, all the water quality samples collected by BFA from Test Sites 1-3 had an acceptable charge balance. The one exception was a sample collected from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 with a chloride concentration of 74 mg/l. This sample has a positive charge balance of 32.30 percent. The sample collected from the packer interval of 270- 295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 has an overabundance of cations probably caused by grouting and cementing of the packer prior to taking the sample. Since chloride is an anion and not a cation, any error associated with this sample would not effect the validity of the 74 mg/l chloride concentration measured in this sample. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that two samples were collected from the same well at a packer interval of 340-400 feet below land surface with acceptable charge balances and they contained chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. The District’s experts, Richard Burklew and David Toth, believe the 450 mg/l chloride concentration measured in a sample taken from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 is a faulty measurement and should be discarded as an outlier. Dr. Toth testified that the sodium to chloride ratio indicates there was a problem with this measurement, which would call into question the reported chloride value. In 2004 and 2005, the City collected SAS water quality samples from Test Sites 4 and 6 and Monitor Wells MW-1 and RW-1 near Test Site 1. The samples were analyzed for all applicable water quality standards, which might preclude use of water from the SAS extraction wells to directly augment wetlands. The analyses found that the SAS water quality near the proposed extraction wells was very similar to the SAS water quality near the Area IV production wells and that water could be applied to the wetlands without any adverse water quality consequences. Area IV UFAS Flow Patterns and Basin Boundaries Although the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) potentiometric surface maps do not show any data points in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and they are not sufficient by themselves to formulate opinions regarding the future operation or impacts of the proposed wellfield, Petitioners contend that these potentiometric surface maps demonstrate that the freshwater found in the UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is due to local freshwater recharge only and not freshwater flow from the northwest. They point to a regional report indicating that there is a groundwater basin divide just north of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is based on a 1980 USGS potentiometric surface map. However, another regional report indicates that the groundwater basin divide occurs south of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is likely based on a 1998 USGS potentiometric surface map. Because of the lack of data points in rural northwest Brevard County, the City did not rely on any groundwater basin divide maps, but rather collected site specific information regarding the proposed Area IV Wellfield. The District’s expert and the Petitioners’ own expert (the sponsor of Petitioners' potentiometric surface map exhibits) noted several errors in the flow direction arrows added by Petitioners to the maps. In addition, after reviewing the potentiometric surface maps presented by Petitioners, the District’s expert concluded that, in addition to local freshwater recharge, the predominant flow into the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield is generally from the northwest and southwest. To confirm his opinion, the District’s expert examined the head difference data collected in July 2006. At well UF-1S, the UFAS observation well at site 1, the elevation in the well was 16.27 NGVD. At site 3, which is southeast of site 1, the elevation in the UFAS observation well was 15.68 NGVD. At site 2, which is southeast of site 3, the elevation in the UFAS well was 13.87 NGVD. Since water generally flows from the highest to lowest head measurements, these measurements indicated that water would have been flowing from the northwest to the southeast in the vicinity of Area IV. However, the potentiometric surface can change both seasonally and yearly; likewise, the basin boundaries may also change. SAS and UFAS Drawdown Predicting drawdown in the SAS and UFAS in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted groundwater flow simulations of the Area IV Wellfield prepared using an analytical model known as the “Multi-Layer/SURFDOWN Model.” Although the District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR, Miami Corporation petitioned and criticized the City's model as not actually providing reasonable assurance, both because of its predicted SAS drawdown and because it was an analytical model (which can only represent simple conditions in the environment, assumes homogenous conditions and simple boundary conditions, and provides only a model-wide solution of the governing equation). By comparison, a numerical model allows for complex representation of conditions in the environment, heterogeneous conditions and complex boundary conditions, and cell-by-cell iterative solutions of the governing equation that are typically performed by a computer. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a numerical model called MODFLOW has become the standard in groundwater modeling throughout the United States and much of the world. All of the Florida water management districts utilize MODFLOW or are familiar with it, so it is a model of choice today for groundwater flow modeling. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005 that was continued until September 2005 after the first revised TSR was issued in May 2005. The final hearing was continued again until February 2006 to allow discovery and hearing preparation by Vergie Clark, who filed her petition in July 2005. As the case proceeded towards a February 2006 final hearing on the pending petitions, the City eventually made what actually was its second attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW model of the Area IV Wellfield. Unbeknownst to the District, BFA already had attempted to develop a MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield in 2004, with the assistance of Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. (WHI) (which later was retained as Petitioners’ consultant in this case in a reverse of the Hartman client switch). When BFA ended its efforts with WHI, their efforts to calibrate a MODFLOW model for Area IV that would predict acceptable drawdown was unsuccessful, and none of those modeling efforts were submitted or disclosed to the District. In the fall of 2005, the City turned to another consultant, SDI, to attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI initially prepared a so- called MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model prepared by BFA. It was presented to District staff at a meeting held in January 2006 for the purpose of demonstrating to District staff that the MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi- layer/SURFDOWN Model generated results for the Area IV Wellfield that were not very different from the results obtained by BFA using their Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model. Petitioners criticized several weaknesses in the MODFLOW equivalent model and maintained that the modeling efforts to date did not give reasonable assurance of no unacceptable SAS drawdown. By this time, the District had decided to retain Dr. Peter Huyakorn, a renowned modeling expert. Based on his recommendations, the District required the City to produce a calibrated MODFLOW model of Area IV (as well as numerical solute transport modeling, which will be discussed below). The scheduled final hearing was continued until September 2006 to allow time for this work to be completed, discovered, and evaluated. After the continuance, the City had SDI prepare a calibrated MODFLOW model to predict the drawdown that would result from operation of Area IV. SDI produced such a model in March 2006. This model predicted less drawdown. Specifically, a steady-state simulation of a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from the proposed 15 UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four proposed SAS extraction/wetland augmentation wells predicted the maximum drawdown of the surficial aquifer to be less than 0.5 foot (which, as discussed infra, would be acceptable). (UFAS drawdown, which is not an issue, was predicted to be an acceptable 12 feet.) But Petitioners questioned the validity of the model for several reasons, including its suspect calibration. Dr. Huyakorn also had questions concerning the calibration of SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, but subsequent work by SDI satisfied Dr. Huyakorn and the District, which issued the TSR and proposed CUP at issue in May 2006 based in part on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, despite Petitioners' criticisms. The final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model (as well as the City's new solute transport modeling, which is discussed, infra). To calibrate its March 2006 MODLFOW, SDI first used a transient MODFLOW model to simulate data from the 4-day aquifer performance test (APT) from the Area IV Wellfield sites (the transient APT calibration). (A transient model is used to analyze time-dependent variable conditions and produces a time- series of simulated conditions.) Then, after calibrating to the APT data, SDI used a steady-state, non-pumping MODFLOW model (a time-independent model used to analyze long-term conditions by producing one set of simulated conditions) to simulate the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS (the steady- state head difference calibration). If the head difference simulated in the steady-state calibration run did not match the measured head difference, the ICU leakance was adjusted, and then the revised parameters were rechecked in another transient APT calibration run. Then, another steady-state head difference calibration run was performed in an iterative process until the best match occurred for both calibration models. In order to achieve calibration, SDI was required to make the ICU leakance value several times tighter than the starting value, which was the value derived in the site-specific APT using conventional curve-matching techniques (and relatively close to the values ascribed to the region in general in the literature and in two regional models that included Area IV near the boundary of their model domains--namely, the District's East Central Florida (ECF) model, which focused on the Orlando area to the south and west, and its Volusia model, which focused on Volusia County to the north). SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value derived from calibration to observed static head differences is more reliable than an ICU leakance value derived from an APT using conventional curve-matching techniques. That leaves a question as to the quality of the static head difference measurements used for SDI's calibration. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006. On each occasion, a downward head gradient was noted at each site, meaning the water table (i.e., the SAS) had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. In July 2006, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of these observed head differences for the Area IV Wellfield was 7.46 feet. BFA's static head difference measurements included both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons and suggest that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. This is typical of head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations because the hydrologic systems seek equilibrium. Petitioners questioned taking an average of the head difference measurements because the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the 12 months prior to time the measurements in July 2006 were taken. By itself, a rainfall deficit would not affect head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium. But there was evidence of a possibly significant rainfall near Area IV not long before the July 2006 measurements. If significant rain fell on Area IV, it could have increased the static head differences to some extent. But there was no evidence that such an effect was felt by Area IV. Petitioners also contend for several other reasons that the static head differences used by SDI as a calibration target were "not what they are cracked up to be." They contend that "limited spatial and temporal extent . . . renders them inappropriate calibration targets." But while the site-specific static head difference measurements were limited, and more measurements at different times would have increased the reliability of the average static head difference used in SDI's steady-state calibration, the head difference measurements used were adequate. For a groundwater model of Area IV, they were as good as or better than the head differences used by Petitioners' expert modeler, Mr. LaFrenz of Tetratech, who relied on SAS and UFAS head levels from the regional-scale ECF model, which were measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in May and September 1995. Petitioners also contended that the measured head differences used by SDI for the steady-state calibration of the March 2006 MODFLOW model were significantly higher than other measured head differences in the general vicinity of Area IV. One such location is Long Lake, which has saltwater and an obviously upward gradient (i.e., a negative head difference between the SAS and UFAS), whereas SDI's MODFLOW depicts it as having a five-foot downward gradient (positive head difference). However, all but one of those measurements (including from Long Lake) were from locations five or more miles from Area IV. In addition, the accuracy of the measurements from the closer location (and all but one of the more distant locations) was not clear, so that the seemingly inconsistent head differences measurements may not be indicative of actual inconsistency with the head difference measurements used by SDI. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of "playing games with specific yield" to achieve calibration with a tighter-than-appropriate ICU leakance value. But the City and the District adequately explained that there was no merit to the accusations. It was appropriate for SDI to use just the relatively small specific storage component of SAS storativity (the 0.001 value) in its transient calibration runs, instead of the larger specific or delayed yield component. Storativity is not utilized at all in the MODLFOW steady-state calibration runs and steady-state simulations. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Petitioners' factual disputes regarding SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value do not make the City's assurance of no unacceptable drawdown provided by its MODFLOW simulations unreasonable. That leaves several other issues raised by Petitioner with regard to the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. In calibrating its MODFLOW model, SDI utilized a value for the MCU leakance that was twice as leaky as the published literature values for the area, which Petitioners claim would reduce simulated SAS drawdown. Although the use of a higher MCU leakance value in the model may result in a prediction of less SAS drawdown, the actual effect, if any, on the predicted drawdown, was not made clear from the evidence. In any event, an MCU leakance value for Area IV calibrated to site-specific data is more reliable than regional values. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of using inappropriate or questionable boundary conditions, topography, and depth to the water table. They also contend that incorrect topography--namely, a nonexistent five-foot ridge or mound northwest of Area IV--provides an artificial source of water for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. But the boundary conditions for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model were clear from the evidence and were appropriate; and SDI's topography and water table depth were reasonably accurate (and on a local scale, were as or more accurate than the USGS topographic maps Petitioners were comparing). Besides, Dr. Huyakorn ran the Tetratech model with SDI's leakance value instead of Tetratech's value and got virtually the same drawdown results, proving that differences in topography between the two models made virtually no difference to the drawdown predictions of either model. As for the so-called "flow from nowhere," particle-tracking simulations conducted by experts from both sides established that, with pumping at 2.75 mgd, no water would enter the Area IV production zone from anywhere near the five-foot ridge area for at least 100 years. This gave reasonable assurance that the five-foot ridge or mound had no effect on the simulated results from SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. Petitioners also contend that the City's failure to simulate drawdown from pumping during the dry season, as opposed to a long-term average of wet and dry seasons, constituted a failure "to provide reasonable assurances as to the conditions that can be expected as a result of the anticipated operation of the wellfields." But the evidence was clear that long-term, steady-state groundwater model simulations are appropriate and adequate to provide reasonable assurance for CUP permitting purposes. See "Drawdown Impacts," infra. By definition, they do not simulate transient conditions such as dry season pumping. The SDI model predicts a maximum drawdown, from a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from all fifteen UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four SAS extraction wells, of slightly less than 0.5 feet in the SAS and of 12.0 feet in the UFAS in the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI’s model predicts a drawdown of 0.11 feet (approximately 1 inch) in the SAS and a drawdown of 2.2 feet in the UFAS at Ms. Clark’s property, which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles north of the Area IV Wellfield. It is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model for Area IV is the best such model in evidence. That is not to say that the drawdown predicted by SDI's model is a certainty. The other models were not proven to be better than SDI's, but they did demonstrate that simulated results would vary significantly in some cases if SDI's calibration and calibrated ICU leakance values were incorrect. Having more good hydrologic information would have made it possible to reduce the uncertainties present in SDI's model, but it is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model was sufficient to give reasonable assurance as to SAS and UFAS drawdown from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation. Drawdown Impacts As indicated, once drawdown is predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Interference with Legal Uses Using SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, the City gave reasonable assurance that the drawdown predicted from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation will not interfere with existing legal users. The nearest existing legal users are located about one mile northwest and two miles east/southeast of the nearest proposed production well. The City’s MODFLOW modeling scenarios indicate that maximum drawdown in the SAS will be less than 0.5 feet and minimal (at most 2.2 feet) in the UFAS at the nearest active existing legal users. Obviously, drawdown would be much less at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). As indicated, the drawdown predicted by SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model is not a certainty. Although not likely based on the more persuasive evidence, if actual drawdown approximates the drawdown predicted by the Tetratech model, there could be interference with existing legal users. (The Tetratech model predicts that the long-term average reduction in the water table of approximately 1.6 feet of drawdown near the center of the wellfield and drawdown of 0.4 feet to 0.5 feet extending out more than a mile from the proposed Area IV Wellfield.) There probably still would be no interference with existing legal users with pumping at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). In the event of that much actual drawdown and unanticipated interference from the City’s pumping, “Other Condition” 15 of the proposed permit requires that it be remedied. See Finding 36, supra. There is no reason to think such interference could not be remedied. Environmental Impacts from Drawdown Miami Corporation’s property in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is a mosaic of pine flatwoods uplands interspersed with wetlands. The wetlands are mostly cypress swamps, with some areas of hardwood swamp, marshes, and wet prairies. Miami Corporation's property is managed for timber and is also used for cattle grazing and hunting. Miami Corporation has constructed a network of roads and ditches on its property, but overall the wetlands are in good conditions. The areas east and west of the proposed Area IV Wellfield consist of cypress strands, which are connected wetlands. Compared to isolated wetland systems, connected wetlands are typically larger, deeper, and connected to waters of the state. They tend to have hardwood wetland species. Connected wetlands are less vulnerable to water level changes brought about by groundwater withdrawals because they tend to be larger systems and have a greater volume of water associated with them. They are able to withstand greater fluctuations in hydroperiods than isolated herbaceous wetland systems. Isolated wetland systems are landlocked systems. They tend to be smaller in size and shallower than connected wetland systems. Isolated systems tend to be more susceptible to changes in hydrology than larger connected systems. The upland plant communities present near the proposed Area IV Wellfield include pine flatwoods that have been altered by Miami Corporation's timber operations. There is a large area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield to the north that consists of forest regeneration after timbering. There was evidence of the presence of the following listed animal species at the site of the proposed Area IV Wellfield: wood storks, roseate spoonbills, ibis, bald eagles, Sherman fox squirrels, American alligator, sandhill cranes, wood storks, black bear, and indications of gopher tortoises. The habitat in the vicinity also supports a number of other listed species that were not observed. The following listed plants species were also observed during the environmental assessment and site visits: hooded pitcher plants, water sundew, pawpaw and yellow butterwort. Ms. Clark’s property adjoins a cut-over cypress swamp on the western side of her property, and there is also a small man-made fish pond in her backyard. Some clearing has taken place in the wetland system on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property. What appears to be a fire break on Ms. Clark’s property encroaches upon the wetland system. The wetlands on Ms. Clark’s property have experienced some human activities such as trash dumping and clearing, which have resulted in a degradation of those systems. Some trees within the wetland systems on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property have been logged. For the most part, the hydrology appears to be normal. However, some invasive species have encroached upon the system due to the clearing that has taken place. There was no evidence of listed plant or animal species present on Ms. Clark’s property. If drawdown is of the magnitude predicted by the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, unacceptable environmental impacts from drawdown would not be anticipated. At 0.5 or 0.75 mgd, there clearly would not be any unacceptable environmental impacts. In addition, “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit requires the City to perform extensive environmental monitoring. The environmental monitoring plan proposed for the Area IV Wellfield provides reasonable assurance that changes to wetland hydrology and vegetation due to groundwater withdrawals will be detected before they become significant. “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit prohibits the City from pumping any water from the production wells until the monitoring network is in place. The baseline monitoring will give a clear indication of the existing conditions prior to the production wells coming on-line. Once the production wells are online, the City will continue the same procedures that they conducted prior to the production wells coming online. This will allow the City and the District to monitor the effects of pumping. The City’s proposed environmental monitoring plan is adequate to detect drawdown impacts and is consistent with environmental monitoring plans that have been developed for other wellfields throughout the State of Florida. Since the City has given reasonable assurance that there will not be environmental harm from drawdown, the proposed permit does not propose mitigation. If unanticipated harm is detected, “Other Condition” 24 of the proposed permit requires the City to implement an avoidance and minimization plan to rehydrate the wetlands and restore the water levels to normal levels and natural hydroperiods by augmenting the water in the affected wetlands with water pumped from SAS wells and piped to the affected wetlands. “Other Condition” 24 includes specific timeframes for implementing wetland rehydration in the event unanticipated impacts were to occur. In addition, the City could, on its own, change its pumping schedules. If an impacted wetland is near a particular well, the City could reduce or shut off water withdrawals from that well and thereby restore water levels in the wetland. Direct augmentation of wetlands has been used at other facilities such as those of Tampa Bay Water and Fort Orange. The direct augmentation at these other sites appears to be effective. Direct augmentation of wetlands has proven to be a feasible means of offsetting adverse changes in wetlands due to groundwater withdrawals, at least in some circumstances. There is a viable source of water that can be utilized to augment these wetland systems, namely a large canal south of the production wells. Based on the predicted drawdown, SDI estimated the quantity of water needed for implementation of the avoidance and minimization plan to be 0.18 mgd. The water quality in the canal is comparable to the water quality within any wetland systems that would be affected by drawdown. The City plans to have its augmentation plan in place prior to the production wells coming online. In that way, if changes are observed within the wetland systems, the augmentation plan could be implemented in relatively short order to alleviate any impacts that might be occurring as a result of the production wells. The success of the augmentation plan depends on the extent of actual drawdown. If actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions, environmental impacts would not be acceptable, and there would not be reasonable assurance that the augmentation plan would be sufficient to mitigate the environmental impacts. If drawdown is of the magnitude simulated in the City’s MODFLOW model, reasonable assurance was given that, if needed, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If the City pumps not more than 0.75 mgd, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield probably would be unnecessary but certainly would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters that would be detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If unanticipated environmental harm occurs due to excessive actual drawdowns, and the harm cannot be avoided either by the augmentation plan or by altering the pumping schedule, or both, the District can revoke all or part of the permit allocation under “Other Condition” 23. This ability gives reasonable assurance that no unacceptable environmental harm will occur even if actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions. Saltwater Up-coning and Intrusion Predicting saltwater movement towards the production zone of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted solute transport simulations using an analytical model known as the “UPCONE Model.” The District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion based on the "UPCONE Model." As indicated, supra, Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005, but the hearing was continued until February 2006. As the case proceeded towards a final hearing in February 2006, the City not only turned to SDI to develop the numerical MODFLOW model, it also turned to SDI to develop a numerical solute transport model that would couple the MODFLOW groundwater flow equations with advection dispersion solute transport equations to simulate the movement of variable density saline groundwater in response to stresses. In addition to the initial boundary conditions, aquifer parameters and stresses specified for a groundwater model, a solute transport model requires solute parameters such as chloride concentrations, dispersivity and effective porosity. SEAWAT is a solute transport model code that combines the MODFLOW, which provides the groundwater flow component, with the MT3DMS code, which provides the mass transport component. When coupled with MODFLOW, the MT3DMS code tracks the movement of variable density water and performs internal adjustments to heads in the flow model to account for water density. Like MODFLOW, SEAWAT is capable of simulating the important aspects of the groundwater flow system, including evapotranpiration, recharge, pumping and groundwater flow. It also can be used to perform both steady-state or transient simulations of density- dependent flow and transport in a saturated zone. It was developed in the late 1990s and is rapidly becoming the standard for solute transport modeling throughout the United States. It is used by many water management agencies in the State of Florida. Initially, SDI used SEAWAT version 2.1 to simulate movement of saline water towards the Area IV Wellfield. The first such simulation was prepared in March 2006 using manually- adjusted head values along the eastern model boundary. It incorporated SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. The District, in consultation with Dr. Huyakorn, required SDI to perform what was termed a "sensitivity run" with reduced chloride concentrations in the eastern boundaries (5,000 mg/l versus 19,000 mg/l) to better match actual measurements recorded in wells in the vicinity. In April 2006 SDI prepared and submitted those simulations. After reviewing the March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulations, Petitioners' consultants criticized the manner in which starting chloride concentrations in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield were input into the models. In those models, SDI had input initial chloride concentration at 50 mg/l throughout the depth of the UFAS. The model was then run for 100 years with no pumping to supposedly arrive at a reasonable starting chloride concentration for the UFAS. Then, the model was run for 25 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. However, the initial chloride concentrations at the beginning of the pumping run still did not comport well with actual measurements that were available. After Petitioners raised the issue of the starting chloride concentrations assigned to the UFAS in SDI's March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 runs, the final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on those models (as well as on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, as discussed supra). During a deposition of Dr. Huyakorn in July 2006, he recommended that the District require SDI to perform another simulation (also termed a "sensitivity run") using starting chloride concentrations more closely comporting with known measurements. (There also were some changes in the constant chloride concentrations that were part of the boundary conditions on the western side of the model domain.) This resulted in SDI's early August 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulation of 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd. Petitioners also criticized the City for not using a newer version of SEAWAT, called SEAWAT 2000, as well as for using chloride concentrations as inputs for its SEAWAT 2.1 model simulations instead of total dissolved solids (TDS). (SEAWAT 2.1 required input of TDS, not chlorides; SEAWAT 2000 allowed chlorides to be input. Not until the last day of the final hearing was it pointed out by Dr. Huyakorn that using chlorides instead of TDS caused SDI's SEAWAT 2.1 simulations to over- predict saltwater intrusion.) As a result of Petitioners' criticisms, the City had SDI re-run both the April and early August SEAWAT 2.1 models in late August 2006 using SEAWAT 2000 (which the City and the District also termed "sensitivity runs.") Because the SEAWAT 2000 simulations would be time- barred from use in the City's case-in-chief under pre-hearing requirements, and whether they could be used in rebuttal could not be determined at that point in time, the City requested another continuance, this time until December 2006, to give Petitioners time to discover the SEAWAT 2000 model simulations. During Petitioners' discovery of SDI's August SEAWAT 2000 model simulations, it came to SDI's attention that SDI was not calculating mass outputs from the model correctly. Those errors were corrected by SDI in September 2006. SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that, after 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd, the chloride concentration in the Area IV production wells would increase from 54 mg/l to 227 mg/l. After the 15-year pumping run, SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that the chloride concentration in several of the southernmost production wells would exceed 250 mg/l. At 17.5 years of the pumping run simulation, the simulation predicted that the entire wellfield would have chlorides in excess of 250 mg/l. That prediction does not, however, mean the chloride concentration in these wells will exceed 250 mg/l in actual operation. The SDI model contains several conservative assumptions that magnified the potential chloride concentrations in those wells. First, it was assumed all the production wells would be drilled to 250 feet below land surface, while the City will likely drill the southernmost wells to a shallower depth. Additionally, the wellfield production rate used in the model was not optimized for water quality. Finally, the model was not set up to simulate a wellfield operation plan that turned wells on and off based on the saline water monitoring plan. For the sake of simplicity, the model assumed that all the wells would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire 15 year period. Petitioners continued to maintain for several reasons that SDI's SEAWAT models do not provide reasonable assurance that operation of the Area IV Wellfield will not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Chlorides versus TDS Petitioners criticized SDI's corrected SEAWAT 2000 model for still not inputting chlorides correctly. While SEAWAT 2000 allows the input of chlorides instead of TDS (and input of chlorides instead of TDS is recommended since chloride is a more stable chemical than some of the other components of TDS), they must be input correctly. However, while Petitioners demonstrated that the chlorides were not input correctly, causing the model to under-calculate fluid density, Dr. Huyakorn clarified in rebuttal that under-calculating fluid density caused SDI's SEAWAT 2000 models to over-predict saltwater intrusion into the wellfield. Starting Chloride Conditions Petitioners continued to question the representation of initial chloride concentrations in the SEAWAT models. SDI's SEAWAT models included multiple vertical grid layers to represent conditions better than the layering used in the MODFLOW set-up. The SAS was represented by layer 1, the ICU by layer 2, the UFAS by layers 3 through 14, the MCU by layer 15, and the LFAS by layers 16 and 17. SDI used a chloride concentration of 0 mg/l for the SAS and ICU in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which probably does not represent the actual initial condition but is probably close enough since the SAS is recharged by rainfall that typically has very low (1 to 2 mg/l) chloride levels. SDI used a chloride concentration of 2,500 mg/l for the MCU and a chloride concentration of 5,000 mg/l for the LFAS in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which are reasonable initial chloride values for the Area IV Wellfield. To develop the initial chloride concentration conditions of the UFAS for its August 2006 SEAWAT model, SDI first plotted the available water quality data (63 well-data points) on a map of the Area IV Wellfield area. After examining the distribution of the data, SDI divided the UFAS into two layers to represent the upper UFAS (above –200 feet NGVD) and the lower UFAS (below –200 feet NGVD). Then, using various scientific studies containing chloride concentration maps, groundwater recharge/discharge maps (recharge indicating an area is more likely to have low chlorides in the UFAS and discharge indicating an area is more likely to have high chlorides), and maps showing the shape and extent of the freshwater lens in the area, plus SDI’s own knowledge of groundwater flows and expected higher chloride concentrations along the coast and St. Johns River, SDI used scientifically accepted hand-contouring techniques to represent the initial chloride concentration conditions of the upper and lower UFAS on maps. SDI’s two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps were reviewed and accepted by the District’s experts and reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield. Using the two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps, SDI input the chloride concentration values from those maps into its August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the upper UFAS map were input into layers 3 through 7 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the lower UFAS map were input into layers 11 through 14 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. SDI input the average of the chloride concentration values from the upper and lower UFAS layers into the middle UFAS (layers 8 through 10). It is appropriate to average the chloride values between the upper and lower UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield because the saline water interface is not that sharp and occurs near the bottom of the UFAS (unlike conditions 11 miles to the south). Petitioners accuse SDI, the City, and the District of ignoring unfavorable chloride data in setting up its August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 model. The evidence was that all chloride data was considered and evaluated. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not rely on the 450 mg/l chloride packer test measurement taken from the interval between 270 and 295 feet at Test Site 3 in preparing the contour maps of the UFAS because the chloride measurement was deemed inaccurate because the sodium to chloride ratio is out of balance. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not utilize the 2,336 mg/l and 2,717 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurements at 442-500 feet below land surface at Test Sites 1 and 3 to prepare the chloride contour maps for the UFAS because they believed these measurements from the MCU. Mr. Davis and the District's experts deemed it inappropriate to utilize a 845 mg/l chloride value reported for Test Site 2 to prepare the chloride contour for the lower portion of the UFAS because this sample was collected at just 210 feet below land surface and because a 500 mg/l contour line separates a 882 mg/l measurement at Test Site 1 from a 134 mg/l measurement at Test Site 3. The decision not to include the Test Site 2 data also is supported by the particle tracking modeling prepared by the Petitioners and the City using the groundwater component of the SDI SEAWAT model and the TetraTech model, which show that water from Test Site 2 will not enter the Area IV production wells for at least 100 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. The chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District experts were consistent with previous studies conducted by the USGS and the District in the region. For example, the chloride contours shown on City Exhibit 142 for the upper portion of the UFAS are generally consistent with Figure 35 of the 1990 USGS Report by Charles Tibbals and Figure 15 of the 1999 District Report by Toth and Boniol. The two chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District's experts are a reasonable representation of the existing water quality of the UFAS in the region of the Area IV Wellfield based on the available data. Mr. Davis used the 882 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurement from the interval between 331 and 400 feet at Test Site 1 as the starting chloride concentration in four grid cells at the bottom of the UFAS, which Petitioners' experts referred to as a "pinnacle" or "column," that were assigned a chloride value of 700 mg/l. While the representation may not have been realistic, and the "pinnacle" or "column" quickly "collapses" when the model begins to run, the representation was a concession to the existence of the datum even though it appeared at odds with water quality collected from a packer test at Test Site 3 at the same depth interval, which was much fresher. District staff agreed with Davis’ approach to representing the saltier packer test measurement from Test Site 1. The initial chloride concentrations developed for the UFAS by Mr. Davis and District staff are not inconsistent with the water quality data collected by the Petitioners’ consultants from Long Lake. The lake is located in an area of the map where the chloride concentration in the UFAS, which discharges into the lake at that location, is between 1,000 and 5,000 mg/l. Mr. Davis decided not to use 2,000 mg/l to represent the bottom layer of the UFAS even though the bottom packer tests performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 showed an average value of 2,000 mg/l at the approximate boundary of the UFAS and the MCU. Instead, he decided to associate this chloride concentration with the MCU because even if the packer had penetrated a portion of the UFAS, he did not believe the measurement was representative of static water quality conditions at that depth. The packers had been pumped for over 4 hours at 25 gpm at Test Site 1 and over 4 hours at 85 gpm at Test Site 3, which could have doubled or tripled the static chloride concentration. As was later shown in sensitivity runs by Petitioners' expert, Dr. Guo, if SDI had incorporated the 2,000 mg/l value at the bottom of the UFAS, the model simulation would have shown unrealistically high initial chloride concentrations in the production wells at the start of pumpage when compared to the water quality measured during the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. (While only one well was pumping at a time, versus the 15 in the model simulations, the single APT well was pumping at approximately three times the rate of the 15 wells in the model simulation.) Based on all the evidence, it is found that the chloride concentrations used in SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield and were properly input into that model using an appropriate method. Location of the MCU Related to the last point is Petitioners' claim that the top of the MCU (i.e., bottom of the UFAS) is incorrectly represented in SDI's SEAWAT models at 450 feet below sea level (approximately 425 feet below land surface). They point to literature values indicating that the depth to the MCU is up to 150 feet greater. However, these reports did not include site- specific data or test wells in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield or in northern Brevard County. It was reasonable to consider and rely on site-specific information regarding the depth to the MCU in this case. BFA determined the approximate location of the MCU by examining cuttings collected during drilling at APT well sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. Based on the site-specific information obtained, the depth to the MCU was determined to be approximately 450 to 475 feet below land surface or –425 to -450 feet NGVD. The lithologic log for well site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 to 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 below land surface. The lithologic log for well site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone from 450 to 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 feet below land surface. According to Petitioners' own expert, Dr. Missimer, the change to a mixture of limestone and dolomite is evidence of the MCU. After examining the video log for well site 1, Dr. Missimer noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface (while still disputing BFA's conclusion that the MCU started there.) One characteristic of the MCU is a lower resistivity. At well site 1, a reduction in resistance occurred at approximately 470 feet below land surface. Another characteristic of penetrating the MCU is decrease in flow. The flow meter log for well site 1 suggests a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. On the other hand, it also is true that wells drilled completely into the MCU probably would not produce more than approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 1 was yielding 25 gpm, and the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 3 was producing 85 gpm. It is possible that the bottom packers were open to both the UFAS and the MCU, which could explain the higher flows. Petitioners maintain that BFA stopped drilling too soon (500 feet below land surface, or 475 feet below sea level) to ascertain the actual depth to the MCU. While it is true that drilling deeper would have made BFA's determination as to the depth to the MCU more convincing and certain, BFA's approximation of the depth to the MCU was reasonable for purposes of SDI's SEAWAT model. To the extent that BFA might have been wrong on the depth to the MCU, there was no convincing evidence that the error would have made SDI's SEAWAT model results unreliable. To the contrary, Dr. Huyakorn testified that, even if SDI put the MCU 75 feet too high, the label given to the interval is not critical to the reliability of the modeling results. More important are the parameters for transmissivity and leakance assigned to aquifers and confining units. Dr. Huyakorn testified that, given the aquifer parameters assigned to the intervals, SDI's SEAWAT modeling results would be reasonably reliable. Saline Movement Impacts As indicated, once chloride concentration changes are predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Significant saline water intrusion is defined as saline water encroachment which detrimentally affects the applicant or other existing legal users of water, or is otherwise detrimental to the public. (Rule 9.4.2, A.H.). Saline water may encroach from upconing or the vertical movement of saline water into a pumping well, and it may encroach laterally to the well from a saline waterbody like the ocean. The proposed use associated with the four surficial aquifer extraction wells is so minimal that it clearly would not cause saline water intrusion or harm the quality of this proposed source of water. The focus of attention is the production wells. The evidence was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed consumptive use from the Area IV Wellfield will not cause significant saline water intrusion; further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems; induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest; or harm the quality of the proposed source of water. First, the long-term constant rate pump tests, which were conducted as part of the APT, give some indication of the potential for saltwater intrusion. While only one well was pumping during the tests, water quality did not degrade at pumping rates that far exceeded what would be approved as part of the proposed permit. During four-day pump tests in which the wells at sites 1 and 3 were pumped at approximately 1 mgd, chlorides never exceeded approximately 74 mg/l. Second, while (as with drawdown predicted by the groundwater flow modeling) saltwater movement predicted by the City’s SEAWAT simulations is not a certainty, the simulations gave reasonable assurance that the requested allocation could be withdrawn from the Area IV Wellfield without excessive changes to water quality (specifically chlorides) and that there is an adequate thickness of freshwater at the Area IV Wellfield that could supply the requested allocations of water for 15 years without saline water intrusion, especially since it is unlikely that a number of the wells will actually be constructed to the 250-foot depth assumed in the model, particularly as one moves south along the railroad right-of way. Third, it is even more unlikely that saltwater intrusion will occur before the proposed permit expiration in 2010. Due to the time required to construct the facility, it is anticipated that the Area IV Wellfield will become operational in 2009. Assuming the City seeks to renew the permit, there would be more information on saltwater intrusion for the District to consider on permit renewal. Since the City provided reasonable assurance as to its proposed withdrawals from Area IV, there clearly is reasonable assurance that withdrawal of not more than 0.75 mgd from Area IV would not result in significant saline intrusion. The TSR includes proposed “Other Condition” 11 which requires the installation of saline monitor wells. The spatial distribution of these wells is such that the beginning of water quality degradation or saltwater intrusion, either from upconing or lateral intrusion, would not occur without it being detected by these wells. In addition to these monitor wells, proposed “Other Condition” 14 requires water quality samples to be collected from each production well. These wells are to be sampled quarterly for a suite of parameters, including chlorides. “Other Condition” 25 is proposed as a “safety net” should unanticipated saltwater intrusion occur. If any production well shows a concentration of 250 mg/l chlorides, then this proposed condition would prohibit further use of the well until the chloride concentration drops. If the monitoring shows a chloride concentration in a production well of 200-to- 249 mg/l, the well will be placed on restricted use. A production well may be placed back into regular service once the chloride concentration in the well is below 200 mg/l. Other Issues Other issues raised and maintained by Petitioners in this case include: whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it owns or controls the property upon which the proposed wellfield will be located; whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it will be able to implement the project before the expiration date of the proposed permit; whether the proposed CUP is inconsistent with the District's designation of Priority Water Resource Caution Areas; whether the proposed CUP constitutes an impermissible modification of the existing CUPs for Areas II and III; and whether the City failed to pay the appropriate permit fee. Ownership or Control The City has obtained an easement from the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to use FEC right-of-way for the City's proposed production wells. It does not yet have ownership or control of land needed for all wetland and saline monitoring sites, or for wetland augmentation if necessary, but intends to acquire the right to use all land needed through negotiation or exercise of eminent domain. Petitioners contend that the FEC easement is insufficient for several reasons: the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind"; it is impossible to define the precise boundaries of the easement because the easement is defined in terms of distance from the center of a railroad bed that existed in 1866 but no longer exists; and the precise location of proposed production wells is not definite. While the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind," the evidence is that, if contested, the precise boundaries of the easement would be difficult but not necessarily impossible to define. It is reasonable to anticipate that at least Miami Corporation will contest the legality and extent of the FEC easement. Petitioners allege that there is confusion about the location of the proposed wells because some well locations identified in the City’s permit application did not match the coordinates assigned to certain production wells on the District’s on-line database. Actually, there is no confusion regarding the location of the wells; the well locations identified in the permit application were the well sites used for modeling purposes and for review of the application. District staff explained that the well site locations identified in the District’s database would be finalized after the wells are constructed and the exact locations have been identified using GPS technology. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, the District’s rules do not require that an applicant own the property where the proposed production wells or monitoring wells are to be located. The District has issued many CUPs where either the subject property or the property associated with the monitoring requirements of the permit are not owned by the applicant. Recent examples include the CUPs for Orange County Utilities and the Orlando Utilities Commission. This makes sense when the applicant has the power of eminent domain or some other credible means of obtaining necessary ownership or control, such as an option contract. The District’s permit application form has a section that requires the applicant to identify who owns or controls the land on which the facility will be located. The District uses this information for noticing and contact information. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, this section of the permit application form is not intended to create a substantive permitting standard requiring property ownership before a consumptive use permit can be issued. Petitioners argue that proof of ownership or control is necessary to determine whether a drawdown from a proposed water use will adversely affect stages or vegetation on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. However, the evidence was that these impacts can be assessed based on the facts of this case. The City's need to eventually obtain ownership or legal control to exercise the rights granted by the proposed CUP may be problematic in this case and is a factor to be considered in the next two issues raised and maintained by Petitioners: whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; and whether the City has provided reasonable assurances that its project can become operational before the expiration date of the proposed permit. But it is not a reason to automatically deny the City's proposed CUP. Economic Feasibility Petitioners argue that the proposed Area IV Wellfield is too expensive and that the expense should be a factor in deciding whether it is in the public interest. But cost to the City is not a factor in determining whether to issue the CUP proposed in this case. Statutes and rules cited by Petitioners on this point do not apply to this CUP determination. See Conclusions of Law 277-279, infra. Implementation Before Expiration Date Litigation of a case filed by Miami Corporation to contest the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement will add to the (cost and) time necessary to implement the project. This additional time was not specifically taken into account by the City in estimating the time it would take to implement the project. The (cost and) time for litigation of the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement could be spared by exercising eminent domain instead. That probably would add to total the cost of eminent domain but might not add appreciably to the time necessary for acquisition of required ownership or control. In an imprecise way, the time for eminent domain proceedings necessary to gain ownership or control of land for monitoring sites and wetland augmentation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead) was factored into the time estimated for implementation of the project. With this rough estimate, the evidence was that the project could be expedited and completed in 33 months from issuance of a CUP. It is possible but not probable that the project could be implemented in less than 33 months. It is possible and more probable that it will take longer than 33 months to implement the project. In a worst case scenario, it could take as much as 59 months complete the project. But 33 months is a reasonable, if optimistic, estimate (without time for litigation of the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead). As found, the proposed CUP expires at the end of 2010. Given the 33-month estimate for implementation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement), the CUP would have to be issued by March 2008 to be completed before expiration. Given that estimate, it would be in operation for six months before expiration. It is likely that the City will apply to renew both the existing CUP for Areas II and III and the proposed CUP for Area IV. It appears from Petitioners' Response to the other PROs that one purpose for their arguments that the proposed CUP for Area IV cannot be implemented before its expiration is to buttress their arguments, already addressed, that there is no need for the proposed CUP for Area IV. Priority Water Resource Caution Area Designation As part of its water supply planning process, the District designates priority water resource caution areas. A priority water resource caution area is an area where existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and water conservation efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and anticipated future needs and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield was designated as a priority water resource caution area in the District’s 2003 Water Supply Assessment and 2005 Water Supply Plan based on groundwater modeling prepared by District planning staffing using the ECF and Volusia County Regional Models. The fact the Area IV Wellfield is located in a priority water use caution area does not mean a consumptive use permit cannot be issued for this facility. In fact, over one- third of the District is located within a priority water resource caution area, and permits continue to be issued in those areas. Rather, the essence of the designation is the recognition of a concern, based on the regional models, that the proposed consumptive use of water might violate the wetland and lake constraints and that water resources other than fresh groundwater will be needed to supply the expected need for water in the area and in the District over the next 20 years. That does not mean that no additional groundwater withdrawals should be permitted in a designated area. Rather, it means that other resources should be developed and used along with whatever remaining additional fresh groundwater can be permitted. It is not an independent reason, apart from the permitting criteria, to deny the City's application. Impermissible Modification of Existing CUP Petitioners contend that the proposed CUP for Area IV includes an impermissible modification of the existing CUP for Areas II and III because “Other Condition” 5 limits average annual withdrawals from the Area II, III, and IV Wellfields, combined, to 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. (As indicated, the limitations would have to be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd based on the more reasonable projected need.) However, the City’s current CUP for the Area II and III Wellfields expires in February 2008, which is before the Area IV Wellfield would become operational, so that "Other Condition" 5 will have no practical effect on the existing CUP for Areas II and III. In essence, "Other Condition" 5 serves to advise the City that it should not view the allocation for the Area IV Wellfield in addition to the City’s existing allocations for the Area II and Area III Wellfields and that any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III will have to take the Area IV allocation into account. Appropriate Permit Fee Petitioners have alleged that the City has not paid the correct permit processing fee. In March 2001, the City paid the District $200 when it submitted its initial permit application to modify its existing CUP. In May 2005, the City paid the District an additional $800 when it amended its application and withdrew its request to modify its existing permit. All required permit processing fees have been paid for this CUP application 99052. Miscellaneous As to other issues raised by Petitioners in the case, the evidence did not suggest any danger of flooding, any proposed use of water reserved by rule for other uses, any effect on any established minimum flows or levels, or inadequate notice. Standing As found, Miami Corporation owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and Ms. Clark owns property a little more than a mile away. Both alleged and attempted to prove that SAS drawdown from the proposed CUP would degrade wetlands on their property and interfere with their legal use of groundwater, and that saline intrusion from the proposed CUP would degrade the water quality of the UFAS resource which they use for potable water. As found, Petitioners did not prove those allegations; however, the evidence was that both Petitioners have substantial interests (the quality of water in the aquifer from which their wells withdraw water and wetlands on their property) that would be affected by the proposed CUP at least to some extent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the District issue the City a CUP for Area IV as provided in the second revised TSR, except for a lower water allocation at this time, namely: 0.75 mgd on an annual average basis, with appropriately lower allocations on the other bases in the TSR, and with a combined annual average rate for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 5 of 5.2 mgd for 2009 and 2010 instead of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 2010, and appropriately lower combined maximum daily rates for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 9. Jurisdiction is reserved to hear and rule on the pending motions for sanctions if renewed no later than 30 days after entry of the final order in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of Tarpon Springs (“City”) is entitled to a industrial wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations. Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that would establish Ross's standing. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in Pinellas County and the applicant for the industrial wastewater permit that is challenged by Ross. The Department is the agency charged by law with the duty, and granted the power, to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The Proposed Permit - General Due to the cost of obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the City’s Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. It determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented the best option for the City. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to convert it to potable water. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet-constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the Town is entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd") of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however, is expected to discharge 1.05 mgd. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County. The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate compliance with its own permitting requirements, so as not to interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate compliance. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on foot from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the mouth of the Anclote River. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater, the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small, pilot-scale RO unit to generate an RO concentrate that is representative of the proposed RO discharge. It was determined that eight constituents of the wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum, copper, iron, gross alpha (a radioactivity measurement), total radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc. The Mixing Zones The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.244. Within the mixing zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. At the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater, receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with Department staff, a separate mixing zone was established for each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet water quality standards at the outfall. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square meters. The mixing zones are conservatively large to assure sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is expected to occur in a smaller area. Toxicity Analysis Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that are acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.500(1)(a). A wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die within a specified time period. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organisms in the receiving waters. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO concentrate indicated zero toxicity. The Department requested that the City also analyze the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A wastewater discharge shows chronic toxicity if exposure to the discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test organisms. The tests performed on the representative discharge showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not create chronic toxicity in the mixing zones. Petitioner’s expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed a general concern about a salty discharge that could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur. The proposed permit requires the City to conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the City to periodically test the water and sediments for any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge. Evaluation of Disposal Options Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.625(6) requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated blending the discharge concentrate with the City's re-use water irrigation program or with the City’s domestic wastewater discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of domestic wastewater available throughout the year. In addition, the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and, therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(2). The City also looked at underground injection but that was economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf. Anti-degradation Analysis For a proposed new discharge, a permit applicant must demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of water quality is not economically and technologically reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(d). As discussed above, the City investigated other disposal options, but they were not economically or technologically reasonable. An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17). In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the Department is required by Rule 62-4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and, if applicable, Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. The proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. The Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as expressed in Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010): The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to conserve and protect water resources, provide adequate supplies and provide for natural systems, and promote brackish water demineralization as an alternative to withdrawals of freshwater groundwater and surface water by removing institutional barriers to demineralization and, through research, including demonstration projects, to advance water and water by-product treatment technology, sound waste by-product disposal methods, and regional solutions to water resources issues. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife. Because the discharge is not toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. The only identified threatened or endangered species that frequents the canal waters is the endangered Florida Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink fresh water. There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the proposed permit. Manatees and many other aquatic species use seagrasses as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge would have no effect on the seagrasses in the area. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Because the proposed discharge is non-toxic and would meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would reduce marine productivity. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However, the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge would probably be undetectable at that distance. It would have no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve. With regard to the requirement that the proposed discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for the area, there is no such plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and approving the issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Henry Ross 1020 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "for an improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of August, 2006.
