The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Respondents Falkner to transfer and modify a Water Use Permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is responsible for regulation and protection of water resources in the geographic area involved in this proceeding. Since 1994, John Falkner has owned the property in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this proceeding. The Falkner property is farmed by Christopher Falkner, the owner's brother. Prior to purchasing the land, the Falkners farmed the property, also known as the Rogers farm, through a lease arrangement with the previous owner. Rose Ann DeVito owns property to the south of the Falkner property. In the time since Ms. DeVito purchased the property, the elevation of Sumner Road has been raised and culverts were replaced. A fish farm was constructed in close proximity to her property. The result of this and other development has been to direct all the water flow from the surrounding area into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. Drainage patterns in the area of Ms. DeVito's property have been altered since she first occupied the property. A ditch along Sumner Road which used to handle runoff from her property has been blocked by a neighbor's driveway. Maintenance on the ditch, allegedly a county responsibility, is described as poor. The ditch at the rear of Ms. DeVito's property handled water flow to Bullfrog Creek until the water flow became blocked, and the water diverted onto her property. The effect is that Ms. DeVito's property often contains a large amount of water. A substantial amount of sand is visible on her property, allegedly deposited by water flow. According to Ms. DeVito, both the county and the District have blamed the Falkner farm for the water-deposited sand. Charles and Diana Booth own property adjacent and to the south of the Falkner property. From 1992 to 1994, the Booths suffered from water running off the Falkner/Rogers farm and flooding the Booth property. A flood of the Booth property in the Fall of 1994 was not caused by irrigation but was related to a ten inch rainfall event at the Falkner farm. A ten inch rainfall exceeds a 25 year storm event and would likely result in widespread flooding. The Booths' pasture, top soil and driveway were eroded by the flooding. During the two years of flooding, Mr. Booth complained on several occasions about the flooding to the Falkners' foreman, "Cleo." The complaints were not relayed to Mr. Falkner. In October 1994, Mr. Booth reported the problem to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Soon after the complaint was made, a representative of the District inspected the property and determined that a ditch needed maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the ditch was cleaned and a berm was installed to redirect runoff away from the Booth property. There has been no further flooding of the Booth property. In October 1995, Mr. Booth became concerned that a ditch was filling with sand and would not continue to handle the runoff. After voicing his concern, a water diverter was installed in the ditch and appears to have remedied the situation. At the time the Falkners began to lease the Rogers property, an existing water use permit, numbered 206938.01, had been issued and was valid for the farm. The Falkners have applied to transfer the existing water use permit from the previous property owner. The Falkners also seek to modify the permit, increasing the total quantities which can be pumped by transferring previously approved quantities from another permit the Falkners currently hold. All of the relevant wells are within the District's Most Impacted Area (MIA) of the Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area. The District allows a permit holder within the MIA to increase withdrawals from a well by transferring the quantities from another permitted well within the MIA. The other Falkner farm (the "301 farm") from which the quantities would be transferred is located approximately one-half mile to the south of the Rogers farm and is within the MIA. The District reviewed the application and, on September 29, 1995, issued its Proposed Agency Action to Issue Water Use Permit No. 206938.03. The proposed permit includes special conditions requiring monthly pumping reports, water quality reports, adherence to District irrigation allotments (irrigation levels established by the AGMOD computer model) and crop reporting. In reviewing the application the District utilized the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review, incorporated into the code by reference. In order to obtain a Water Use Permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the water use is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. Additionally, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use: will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters; will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application; will not cause water to go to waste; and will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the water use is reasonable, beneficial and is in the public interest. The Falkners irrigate farmland to produce agricultural products. The production of food is in the public interest. The proposed use is reasonable and beneficial. Further, uncontradicted evidence and opinions of expert witnesses establish that the proposed use will not interfere with any existing legal use of water. The applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. The evidence establishes that pumping from the Falkner wells will not adversely affect the quality of water within the aquifers from which the water is drawn. Mr. Booth asserted that he is having water quality problems, specifically with rust in his well. The Booth well is approximately 25 years old. There is no evidence that the rust is related to the Falkner pumping. The DeVito and Booth wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer. Review of the potentiometric surface map of the intermediate aquifer indicates that there is a water level variation of 17 feet between the rainy and dry seasons. The result of the variance can be "dry" wells. There are two wells on the Falkner/Rogers property relevant to this proceeding. The first (District ID number 1) is 770 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 160 feet, and opens to the Floridan aquifer. The second (District ID number 2) is 1100 feet deep, is cased to a depth of 140 feet, and opens to the Intermediate and the Floridan aquifers. A cased well does not withdraw water from the formations through which the casing is placed. For example, a well cased to a depth of 160 feet draws no water from the top of the casing (at approximately ground level) to the bottom of the casing at 160 feet. The Intermediate aquifer releases water at a much slower rate than the Floridan aquifer. Based on the type and location of the Falkner wells, the vast majority of the water pumped by the Falkners comes from the Floridan aquifer. Impacts on existing wells are calculated through computer modeling. The "MOD" flow model demonstrates impacts that will occur after 90 days of pumping at peak month levels with no recharge to the aquifer. The MOD flow model results in a conservative "worst case" projection. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 1 to be approximately .9 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at Falkner well number 2 to be approximately 1.4 feet. The MOD flow model calculation projects the drawdown at the Booth well to be approximately one-half foot. The impact on the DeVito well will not exceed that projected at the Booth well. District permitting criteria allow for projected MOD flow model drawdown impacts of less than five feet at existing wells. The impact possible after approval of this application falls well within the District's guidelines. The impact of pumping if the application at issue in this proceeding is approved will result in a maximum variation of one-half foot at the Booth well. The evidence fails to establish that any problems related to water quantity encountered by the Booths are related to agricultural pumping at the Falkner farms. The evidence also establishes that, based on the existing retention and drainage system, the proposed use will not adversely impact surrounding surface water bodies. A system of swales and ditches is utilized to retain the water on the farm property. The evidence fails to establish that runoff from the Falkner/Rogers farm will adversely impact surrounding surface waters if this application is approved. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application. The evidence establishes that the runoff from the Falkner farm does not discharge directly to the stream at the rear of the DeVito property. Other agricultural property discharges into the stream adjacent to the DeVito property. There is a steady waterflow through the stream at all times, whether or not the Falkner pumps are operating. Ms. DeVito's property consists of Myakka soil, which has little capacity to absorb rainfall and generates large amounts of runoff. The altered drainage patterns in the area have resulted in substantial water on her property. The evidence in insufficient to establish that the Falkner farm pumping has resulted in flooding on Ms. DeVito's property. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the application at issue in this proceeding will cause adverse impact to the DeVito property or will result in water quality or quantity problems. The Booths are concerned that the existing drainage system will not be maintained and that increased pumping will result in their land being flooded again. The evidence fails to establish a substantial likelihood that the Falkner farm drainage system will not be maintained. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the water use will not cause water to go to waste. The Falkners use a semi-enclosed seep irrigation system at the Rogers farm. Irrigation is only used when necessary. Mushroom compost, humates, and plastic mulch retain moisture in the soil. A special condition of the permit requires the Falkners investigate the feasibility of tail water recovery and reuse. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District. The permit application results in no increased withdrawal of water than is allowed under the existing permits for the Rogers and the "301" farms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the Falkner application and issuing permit number 206938.03. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NO. 95-5763 and 95-5764 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioners Booth The Petitioners Booth proposed findings of fact fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, which requires citations to the record of hearing. The proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence except where they are consistent with the Findings of Fact set forth herein. Respondents The Respondents' joint proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, cumulative. 28-29. Rejected, subordinate. 33. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Rose Ann DeVito, pro se 11001 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Diana P. and Charles B. Booth, pro se 10812 Sumner Road Wimauma, Florida 33598 Patricia Petruff, Esquire Dye and Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 Martin Hernandez, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 6, 1984, petitioner applied for a DER permit to construct a marina on state owned submerged land located in Punta Rassa, Lee County, Florida. The original design requested approval to build slips for 54 boats. This design was later modified to conform to suggested modifications made by DER staff. The modification reduced the size of the marina to 30 boat slips. By an Intent to Issue dated April 24, 1985, petitioner was advised that the DER intended to issue the permit with 17 special conditions. Special Condition Number 1 advised petitioner of the Florida law which states that construction on state sovereignty lands may not be commenced prior to receiving from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. In none of the 17 special conditions, nor in any other portion of the Intent to Issue, was it stated when the permit time would begin to run, or when it would expire. The expiration date of the proposed permit simply was not mentioned. The Intent to Issue did contain a standard "point of entry" notice, advising that a petition for a hearing could be filed and stating that the hearing process was designed to formulate agency action. Having no objection to the DER's Intent to Issue and the conditions thereof, the petitioner determined not to request an administrative hearing with regard to said Intent. On May 17, 1985, the DER issued to petitioner Permit Number 360836415. This permit included 15 general conditions and the same 17 special conditions that were contained in the Intent to Issue. In addition, the permit stated that it would expire on June 1, 1987. The permit was accompanied by a letter. Neither the letter, nor the permit, bore the stamp of the agency clerk or contained language advising petitioner of its right to petition for an administrative hearing or other "point of entry" language. DER never notified petitioner by any document that contained "point of entry" language that the permit time would begin running immediately and would expire on June 1, 1987. In order to obtain a sovereignty land lease from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, petitioner was required to modify its proposed marina design by reducing the number of boat slips to 14. The Trustees approved the lease on or about July 29, 1986, although the Certification of Board Action attesting the Board's approval of the lease, as well as the sovereignty submerged land lease itself, was not forwarded to the petitioner until March 12, 1987. Due to the modifications required by the Trustees, the petitioner requested DER to modify its permit to reflect the reduction of the project scope. The request represented a minor modification to the permit and was granted by DER by letter dated September 30, 1986. The letter of modification does not suggest that the original expiration date of the permit had been changed. As of June 1, 1987, construction work on the proposed marina had not yet begun. The petitioner's agent relied upon a promulgated rule of the DER and assumed that the permit time would not begin to run on this project until petitioner had obtained consent to use state owned submerged land. DER's Dredge and Fill Application is encompassed in a form which is adopted by reference in Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. This rule was adopted in 1982 and is still in effect today. A portion of that form, Appendix E, paragraph 3(g), on page 30, states that Where the proposed activity involves the use of state-owned submerged lands, DER shall not issue a permit before approval or consent of use is obtained from DNR, although DER will continue to process the application to the extent possible. (Emphasis supplied.) Except for this rule, DER has no other published instructions to applicants as to when permit times begin to run. Since the effective date of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act (Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes) in October of 1984, DER has not followed its policy outlined in Form 17-1.203(1), as adopted by rule. This contrary practice is based on DER's interpretation of the Henderson Act's failure to include language which was previously included in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, to the effect that DER permits do not become effective until all other local, state and federal permits are issued. DER's internal practice that calculates the running of the permit time prior to receiving approval to use state owned submerged land is not the subject of any public notice, memorandum or instructions generally available to the public or permit applicants. DER does not require permittees to provide proof of submerged land consent subsequent to the issuance of the DER permit. Also, DER has no internal mechanism for regularly apprising itself of permits which are soon to expire. DER does process and grant time extensions of permits. Requests for time extensions are made through a simple written request, and DER will generally grant such requests if the subject permit is still valid. If the DER permit has already expired at the time that the request for an extension is made, DER requires a new permit application. In this case, petitioner did not request an extension at any time before June 1, 1987. As noted above, it was the belief of petitioner's agent that the two-year permit term would not begin to run until the required Trustee's consent was secured. It was not until June 23 or 24, 1987, that he learned that DER considered the permit to have expired on June 1, 1987. In July of 1987, petitioner did re-apply for a new permit, but DER had environmental objections to the issuance of a new permit. The petition initiating these proceedings was subsequently filed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order holding that Permit Number 360836415 does not expire until two years from March 12, 1987, and that appropriate recognition be given to the time which has elapsed due to the pendency of the instant proceeding. Respectfully Submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX The Proposed findings of fact Submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or Summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 7. Rejected as an improper factual finding. Respondent 19. Last three Sentences rejected as contrary to the evidence. 21. Partially rejected due to the existence of Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Grosso, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00292 is for a consumptive use permit for one well located in the Green Swamp, Lake County. The water withdrawn is to be used for industrial purposes. The application seeks a total withdrawal of 3.642 million gallons per day average annual withdrawal and 5.112 million gallons maximum daily withdrawal. This withdrawal will be from one well and a dredge lake and constitutes in its entirety a new use. The consumptive use, as sought, does not exceed the water crop as defined by the district nor otherwise violate any of the requirements set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2) , (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of a permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on the subject well. The applicant shall record the pumpage from the subject well on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning on January 15, 1977. The permit shall expire on December 31, 1980. The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, have been complied with as they pertain to this application. The intended consumptive use appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use which is consistent with the public interest and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive water use permit in the amounts and manner sought for by the subject application be issued subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 4667 Southwest Florida Water Jacksonville, Florida Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES CMI is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida. CMI owns a mine site as is depicted in the permit application, which mine site is known as "Pine Level". Alan R. Behrens owns residential property approximately two miles from Pine Level, which abuts Horse Creek. He maintains an individual well for domestic and other purposes, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. Charlotte County is a government entity and a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The City of North Port is an incorporated municipality of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The Environmental Confederation (ECOSWF), a citizens group, is a substantially affected person under the statute. The District is the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and ruling upon CMI's water use permit application. APPLICATION AND PROCESS CMI proposes to operate a phosphate mine facility at "Pine Level" ("site"). The site is located approximately seven miles west of Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. The mine reserves at the site are approximately 17,700 acres. 9,000 to 10,000 acres are projected for mining. In 1978, Consumptive Use Permit No. 200103, was issued and in 1986, the current owners purchased the corporation which held the permit, and changed the name of the corporation to CMI. The Industrial Water Use Permit has not been used since it was issued to a prior owner of the site, and provided for average daily withdrawals of 13.6 mgd from wells. In 1984, this permit was renewed and modified to provide for average daily withdrawals of 12.8 mgd from deep wells. The groundwater withdrawals currently sought by CMI is 6.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") average daily withdrawal, which totals include 5.1 mgd from deep wells for use in the amine flotation process and 1.7 mgd for sealing the matrix slurry pumps. This reduction to 6.9 mgd in permitted withdrawals is a significant reduction. In addition, the proposed permit allows 3.7 mgd to be withdrawn from the surficial aquifer by dewatering mine cuts. In November, 1990, CMI submitted an application for renewal. In November 1991, CMI submitted to the District a revised Water Use Application No. 200103.02 ("application") to renew and modify the existing water use permit. The District requested more information, and CMI provided additional information and supplemental responses to aid in the review and evaluation of the application. The District prepared and submitted a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and the District staff has prepared a "draft" Permit No. 200103.02 authorizing the withdrawal of the quantities requested in the application with certain conditions. In addition to renewal and modification of the water use permit, which is the subject of this proceeding, CMI will be required to participate in numerous regulatory reviews and permitting procedures (i.e. a development of regional impact evaluation, a federal environmental impact statement, federal approvals under the Clean Water Act [including a national pollutant discharge elimination system ("NPDES") permit], and a conceptual reclamation plan review) before CMI may commence mining, and consequently, begin any withdrawal of water. The mining process will utilize large walking draglines to excavate over burden and stack it beside the active mining area for land reclamation. The ore material called "matrix" will be dug up by the draglines, placed into an earthen pit where it will be slurried with a high pressure water jet. A pump will pick up this slurried matrix material, pump it back to the processing plant where it will first go through various separation devices, including screens and cyclones. The course material termed "pebble" will be separated and parts of that will be directly saleable as a product. The bulk of the phosphate product is contained in intermediate-sized material called concentrate feed. The concentrate feed consists of ore and sand. The ore is separated from the sand in a process called "flotation". The flotation process is a two stage process that ends up separating the tailings sand, which can then go back to the sand-clay flocculation and mixing units, and be pumped out ultimately for land reclamation back in the mine-out areas. The phosphate product which is called "wet rock", is placed in storage bins where it can drain, and be loaded onto rail cars for shipment. The "amine flotation process" is the second stage of flotation where sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water for the amine flotation phase, because any amount of contaminants, including organic reagents, will adversely affect the process. Any mineral particles must be removed so that the amine may attach itself to the phosphate. Any contaminants will destroy or significantly and adversely affect not only the phosphate recovery, but the entire flotation process. Deep well water is requested for use in the amine flotation process because it is clean. All phosphate mines in Florida currently rely on deep well water. 5.2 mgd is the minimum amount of "clean" water needed to assure efficient processing of the amine flotation process of the mine beneficiation plant. Deep well withdrawals are also commonly used for the purpose of sealing or protecting the packing of pumps at various points in the mine system in order to avoid damage to the equipment. These wells are often referred to as "sealing water wells". The Pine Level mine will require 1.7 mgd for this purpose. Water for the sealing water wells must be clean and clear in order to effectively seal pumps for leaks. The Pine Level project will provide 400-500 construction jobs during the construction period. It will provide approximately 200 full-time jobs with an annual payroll of about five million dollars once it is in operation. It will result in about one thousand additional jobs providing services to the development. It will pay in excess of one million dollars a year to DeSoto County in ad valorem taxes. TECHNICAL CRITERIA The water use is a reasonable and beneficial use. 5.2 mgd groundwater withdrawal is "necessary to fill a certain reasonable demand." The technical criteria relating to water level or rates of flow impacts set forth in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, are not applicable in this proceeding because the District has not established any regulatory levels or rates of flow for the area encompassed by the application. In addition, this presumption only addresses surface water withdrawals. Phosphate mining is a beneficial activity and is consistent with the public interest. There is no significant risk of salt water intrusion. The water use withdrawal will not degrade the water quality in the aquifer by causing any contamination plume to spread. There have been no contaminant plumes identified on site. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS There is sufficient ground water at the site of a suitable quality and quantity to support the proposed phosphate mining and beneficiation activities. The local hydrogeology at the site consists of an upper layer known as the surficial aquifer. Rain penetrates the surficial aquifer to flow vertically to the water table. The water that is not consumed by vegetation at this layer will flow either to a nearby stream channel or will leak down through a semi- confining layer. The water continues to seep vertically into the lower underlying limestone aquifers. There are three limestone water-bearing layers: the intermediate, the Suwannee or Upper Floridan, and the Avon Park or Lower Floridan aquifers, respectively. The intermediate and the underlying Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. Likewise, the Avon Park aquifer and the Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. At the site, wells in the intermediate aquifer will draw water to seal the bearings on the matrix slurry pumps. There will be one deep well in the Suwannee and one deep well in the Avon Park to draw for the beneficiation plant. The groundwater modeling performed by CMI simulated the four aquifers, that is, the surficial aquifer and each of the three limestone aquifers. An Aquifer Performance Test ("APT") was performed at the site. The data generated from the APT was used to calculate various aquifer parameters, for example, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and leakiness. This information was then used in setting up the groundwater flow model that ultimately was incorporated into the application. During the District staff's review of the application, the deep well withdrawal quantities requested by CMI were compared with approximately 6 other phosphate mines of comparable size, acreage, and type of operation. As a result of this comparison, the staff found CMI's requested use to be less than the other six phosphate mines. The use of recycled water in the amine flotation process in place of deep well water in the past by CMI has proven unsuccessful because a constant temperature and a constant ph level could not be maintained with recycled water, and recycled water contains traces of fatty acids and oils, which also negatively affect the amine flotation process. C.F. Industries, Inc., has been operating a phosphate mine in Hardee County, Florida, since 1978. C.F. Industries, Inc., has since 1983 at the Hardee County mine, successfully substituted recirculation water for deep well water for operation of the amine flotation circuit on a routine basis. C.F. Industries, Inc., presently plans to employ substitution of some recirculation water for deep well water in a new yet-to-be permitted mine. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing Hardee County mine requires use of deep well water for start-up purposes to "charge" the system. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing mine, uses deep well water to respond to abnormal operational conditions, including excessive rainfall events, when the quality of the normal recirculation water is not suitable for substitution of deep well water. Neither CMI, nor District staff was aware prior to hearing, that the C.F. mine was successfully substituting recycled water for deep well water in the amine flotation process. At the time of making the representations to the District about necessary water quality requirements of the flotation process, CMI had a study, entitled, Amine Water Evaluation, Pine Level Project, July 27, 1984, ("Pilot Plant Study"), which concluded that deep well pumping and discharge could be reduced by use of water drawn from mine cuts. The Pilot Plant study was site specific to CMI's proposed phosphate mine. The Pilot Plant study bench tests were verified in the same pilot plant facility CMI uses to verify the grade of ore on the Pine Level Site. The Pilot Plant study or its results were known to CMI officials or experts involved in the permit application at issue in this case. CMI did not inform District staff of the existence or conclusions of the Pilot Plant study. The Pilot Plant study indicates that CMI could reduce its water usage by substituting water from mine cuts for deep well water. CMI did no studies to determine if the substitution of mine cut water for deep well water, as suggested by the Pilot Plant Study, was feasible to implement. SURFACE WATER IMPACTS The phosphate ore (matrix), is extracted by an excavation machine called a "dragline", which opens mining cuts of approximately 32 to 35 feet in depth, 330 feet wide, and up to 4,000 feet long. Seepage occurs into the mine cuts from the water table, and must be pumped out in order to see and extract the matrix. This dewatering is also necessary to protect the draglines against slope stability problems. Water pumped out of the mining cuts is introduced into the mine water recirculation system which is operated for purposes of collecting and recycling water within the mine complex. The matrix that is extracted from the mining cut is placed in a shallow excavation near the cut, and is converted to a slurry and, thereafter, transported hydraulically to the mine processing (or "beneficiation") plant. The beneficiation plant uses considerable quantities of water, utilizing supplies from within the mine system (i.e. surface water) and water from deep wells. Sand tailings and sand and clay mixture are by-products of the mining process. Recycled water is used to transport waste clay and sand from the plant to the disposal and reclamation areas. Reclamation takes 1-2 years for areas reclaimed with sand tailings and 5-6 years for areas reclaimed with a sand-clay mixture. Groundwater that is used in the processing plant is recycled. Water within the mine is recycled a number of times, and CMI's proposal calls for 90 percent of the total mine demand to be satisfied by this recirculation system and approximately 96 percent of the water used is recyclable water. DEWATERING AND WATER BALANCE CMI's mine pit dewatering activities result in the withdrawal of water from the surficial aquifer. A "water balance" demonstrates that requested quantities relate to reasonable mining, processing, and dewatering needs. The "water balance" for the mining operation evidences a balance between sources and uses/losses. The sources of water in the CMI water balance that input to the mining operation include groundwater from wells (6.9 mgd), mine cut dewatering or water table drainage (3.7 mgd), and collected rainfall (3.1 mgd). Uses and losses associated with the mining operation include water retained in clays (6.7 mgd), water shipped with final product (.7 mgd), evapotranspiration and evaporation (3.0 mgd), water used for agricultural irrigation (5.0 mgd), and water seeping from the Mine Water Surge Area ("MWSA") (1.2 mgd). The water balance matrix moisture component of 2.9 mgd is not a withdrawal of water for water use permitting purposes. The District's modeling of the impacts resulting from mine cut dewatering resulted in a finding of 2.34 MGD as opposed to the 3.7 mgd derived by CMI. For calculation purposes, rainfall is collected at the rate of 3,974 gallons per acre per day. CMI calculates that it will collect 3.1 mgd of rainfall, and use it in its recirculation system. The 3.1 mgd calculation is based on the amount of rain that will fall on 600 acres of mine water surge area, 80 acres of plant site, and two 50 acre mine cuts. CMI plans to mine 450 acres each year at the Pine Level Site over a period of 22 years. Runoff over disturbed areas on the CMI mine site must be captured, and will become part of the recirculation system. Assuming only one year of disturbed area during the permit term, CMI has failed to account for nearly 1.8 mgd in its water balance (450 acres x 3,974 gallons/acre/day). CMI plans to pump any rainfall collected from all disturbed areas to the mine water surge area (MWSA). CMI has not included any acres of disturbed area in its calculations of the amount of rainfall it will collect for the current permit. CMI has not submitted a mine plan. Without a mine plan, the number of disturbed acres cannot be determined. Because CMI's water balance does not include rainfall collected over disturbed areas, the water balance is incorrect. The rainfall collected from the disturbed areas will increase the amount of water that CMI will need to discharge or use for agricultural purposes. Excavation of the Mine Water Surge Area will cause dewatering of the surficial aquifer. No analysis was done of how much dewatering of the surficial aquifer will occur as a result of the excavation of the MWSA, or of the potential impacts to wetlands as a result of the dewatering activities. The District's one foot draw down presumption applies to dewatering as well as to groundwater pumping. The proposed dewatering setback from wetlands was set at 660 feet. The 660 foot setback distance is in lieu of mitigation if CMI wishes to mine within the setback distance, it will be required to implement mitigation procedures. Dewatering draw downs in the surficial aquifer as great as six and one-half to seven feet could occur on the CMI site at 660 feet from a mine cut under dry weather conditions. At 660 feet, the predicted draw down is nearly one and one-half feet using a mine pit depth of 26 feet, based on a three foot water table and a 29 foot average mine cut depth for the area expected to be mined during the term of the permit. Actual mine cut depths during the term of the permit would be as deep as thirty-seven feet which result in a draw down in the aquifer that is greater than one and on-half feet. Combining the dewatering calculations with the surficial aquifer draw downs resulting from CMI's planned well pumping from the intermediate and Floridian aquifers result in greater than predicted draw downs. CMI's water balance did not account for changes in water needs due to variability of the ore body. WATER QUALITY CMI has not demonstrated that the water quantities requested for the operation of the phosphate mine and beneficiation plant, and land reclamation and water handling will utilize the lowest water quality to the greatest extent practicable. Nevertheless, the Pine Level mine is innovative in comparison to other operating mines. It proposes to reduce its groundwater requirement by increasing the amount of recycled water used in the amine flotation process; employ an innovative sand/clay mixing technique for land reclamation, thus eliminating the need for conventional large, above-ground day settling areas or slime ponds; and use surplus water for irrigation of agricultural crops or pasture. CMI plans to mine the Pine Level Site for a period of 22 years. For phosphate mines, neither DNR, nor SWFWMD analyze impacts with respect to surface water during the mining process. For phosphate mines, no state agency looks at off-site surface water impacts from the standpoint of draw downs, with the possible exception of cities and counties. The District has not required CMI to submit an application for the management and storage of surface waters permit, since the District staff believes that phosphate mines are exempt from obtaining any MSSW permit from the District. A gap exists in the regulatory scheme for phosphate mines with respect to the reduction of surface water flows during the mining process if SWFWMD exempts phosphate mines from obtaining an MSSW permit. INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING LEGAL USERS The City of North Port is an existing legal user of water. The City of North Port has a public water supply facility which draws its water from the Big Slough. The Big Slough normally gets a portion of its flow from high quality water in the surficial aquifer. CMI's proposed Pine Level phosphate mine is located in the watersheds which feed the Big Slough and the Peace River. In the initial years of the mine, virtually all of the collected rainfall will be diverted from the Big Slough watershed. No analysis has been done to see how dewatering might affect the City of North Port. Any significant reduction in flow to the City of North Port's facility during the low flow season will interfere with North Ports existing legal use of water. Diversion of 3.1 mgd of rainfall from the Big Slough will have an adverse impact on the City of North Port's water facility. The City of North Port is currently under a consent agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation because the water supplied by its facility violates drinking water quality standards for sulfates and total dissolved solids ("TDS") regularly during periods of low flow in the Big Slough. The MWSA, the plant area and the initial mining areas are primarily within the Big Slough drainage area. Seepage of 1.2 mgd from the MWSA will flow into the Big Slough. The only analysis done of the quality of the seepage from the MWSA was a rough analysis which showed that sulfates will likely be around 550 grams per liter. The legal standard for sulfates in drinking water is 250 grams per liter. Seepage from the MWSA will be high in total dissolved solids ("TDS") since a good portion of it was pumped from deep wells which have very high levels of TDS. No analysis was done of the potential of this seepage water to interfere with North Port's facility. Charlotte County is an existing legal user of water whose water supply is drawn from the Peace River downstream from the proposed CMI phosphate mine at Pine Level. Discharge of 5.0 mgd from the Pine Level mine could adversely affect Charlotte County's drinking water facility located on the Peace River. AGRICULTURAL USE CMI proposes to use 5.0 MGD of surplus water for irrigation of pasture grasses for cattle. CMI has not conducted any specific tests to determine the feasibility of using the discharge or the quality of the water that they plan to use for agricultural irrigation. The water for irrigation will be drawn out of the mine water surge area. The determination of whether the 5.0 mgd discharge can be used for agricultural irrigation has been postponed. The staff's position is that the proposed special conditions provide reasonable assurances that the discharge will comply with the requirements of the Basis for Review. WETLANDS Isolated wetlands occur throughout the CMI mine site. The isolated wetlands on the CMI property provide habitat for endangered and threatened species. Sandhill Cranes and Wood Storks, both threatened or endangered species, were sighted on the CMI property by wetlands experts during their site visit prior to the hearing. Small isolated wetlands on CMI property would be adversely affected by less than a one foot draw down. Wetland peat soils oxidize if exposed to the air. Oxidation results in subsidence of the wetland soils, which adversely impacts wetlands. Too much water as well as too little water can adversely impact wetlands. The combined effects of aquifer pumping and dewatering planned at the CMI site will adversely affect wetlands. No analysis was completed of the impacts to wetlands as a result of the combined effects of dewatering and pumping from the aquifer. No information regarding the normal range of wetland hydroperiods for preserved wetlands or other onsite unmined wetlands was introduced. No information was provided regarding the habitat functions provided by the wetlands on the CMI site either for threatened or endangered species or otherwise. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the water use will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to environmental features on or off- site. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact to surface water bodies such as lakes, ponds, impoundments, springs, streams, canals, estuaries or other water courses. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse environmental impact to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish, and wildlife or other natural resources. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impacts to the surface water system or vegetation as a result of groundwater withdrawal. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact by altering or impairing the habitat of threatened or endangered species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the projected draw downs will not result in any adverse impact to any protected or non-protected plant or animal species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse environmental impact to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order DENYING the issuance of a Water Use Permit to the Applicant, CMI. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 31, 35, 38, 70, 71, 73, 75, 91, 97, 100, 104, 105, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, and 129. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 37A, 39 40, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106A, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 134. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraphs - 18, 26, 32, 41, 42, 46 (omitted), 47 (omitted), 69, 88 (omitted), 89 (omitted), 90 (omitted), 118 (omitted), 119 (omitted), and 135 (omitted). Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Charlotte County. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 7, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 36, 40, 41, 51, 59, and 62. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, and 61. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs - 43 and 44. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, City of North Port. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24(in part), 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49(in part), 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57(in part), 58, 59, 60, 61, 63(in part), 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86(in part), 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 104, 107, 108(in part), 109(in part), 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143(in part), 144, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 187, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 4(contained in Preliminary Statement), 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24(in part), 33, 43, 44, 46, 49(in part), 55, 57(in part), 62, 63(in part), 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 86(in part), 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108(in part), 109 (in part), 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 143(in part), 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 174, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent/Petitioner Consolidated Minerals, Inc. and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Accepted in Substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(in part), 23, 24, 25(in part), 26, 27(in part), 28, 29(in part), 32, 33(in part), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52(in part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 57(in part), 58, 62, 71, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 100(in part), 101, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124(in part), 125(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 133(in part), 137, 138(in part), 139, 145. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 12, 13, 15, 16, 31, 36, 37, 38, 48, 51, 52(in part), 57(in part), 59, 60, 63, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 94(in part), 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 124(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 134, 135, 136, 138(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragrahs - 22(in part), 25(in part), 27(in part), 29(in part), 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 89, 92(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 98, 99, 100(in part), 102, 103, 121, 122, 125(in part), 128, 129, 131, 132, 133(in part), 144. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitoner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4 6, 7, 17, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 39(in part) 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 71, 73, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 92(in part), 106, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32 33(in part), 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 120, 146, 147, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 44, 54, 69, 139(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Roger W. Sims, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Suite 2600 200 S. Orange Avenue P. O. Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vivian Arenas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, Florida 34609 Mr. Alan R. Behrens Route 2, Box 725-A-32 Arcadia, Florida 33821 Matthew G. Minter, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Cr. Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 David M. Levin, Esquire ICARD, MERRILL, CULLIS, TIMM, FUREN & GINSBURG PO Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kenneth B. Wright, Esquire Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund PO Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue This proceeding concerns a Consent Order entered into by the Department of Environmental regulation (DER), and James and Patricia Gratzer (Gratzers) regarding an allegedly unpermitted fill in Winter Springs, Florida. The ultimate issue for determination is whether DER abused its discretion in resolving the alleged violations by entering into the subject Consent Order.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1990, the Gratzers purchased a 4.35 acre lot located at 216 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. At the time of purchase, the Gratzers planned to divide the lot and build a residence on the two acre parcel. In preparation for construction of their new home, the Gratzers approached the Winter Springs City Council to subdivide the property and to approve of use of the fill road as ingress and egress for both lots. In February of 1991, the Gratzers and their builder obtained the proper building permits from the County and septic tank permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Construction began on the residence on April 9, 1992 when the Gratzers' builder brought in several trucks of dirt to the end of the existing fill road to begin the house pad. At the time the Gratzers began construction on the subject lot, they had no idea or reason to believe that they were about to build in jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. On approximately April 14, 1992, the Gratzers were first made aware that they may have problems with potential wetlands on the property when an officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission visiting the site instructed the builders to halt construction, pending a review by DER. As a result of the site visit, the Gratzers investigated further with DER employees the potential wetlands on their property. They also sought the advice of an attorney and his environmental consultant regarding possible ways to solve DER's concerns. On approximately April 26, 1991, an employee of DER visited the site and made an initial determination that the property was a jurisdictional wetland subject to permitting by DER. Under present rules the Gratzer property, with exception of the filled access road, would all be in DER jurisdictional wetlands if only the natural vegetation were considered. Upon being informed of DER's initial determination, the Gratzers hired an engineer from Boyer-Singleton & Associates to make an engineering determination as to the extent of jurisdictional wetlands based upon a ten-year backstop. A ten-year backstop is a method provided by statute to determine the ultimate landward extent of DER's vegetational jurisdictional line. It is a hydrological calculation to determine water elevation levels in a certain area, subject to the ten-year recurrent storm event. By rule and statute, DER's jurisdiction over wetlands effectively stops at the upper end or limit of the ten-year flood elevation line. Claude Cassagnol, of Boyer-Singleton and Associates, an expert in hydrology, reviewed available materials, visited the site and made an initial determination of the ten-year backstop on the Gratzers' property, and ultimately mapped out his conclusions on a plat. Mr. Cassagnol's hydrological study, and his review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) materials, led him to conclude that the ten-year backstop would leave the Gratzer's house pad out of any DER jurisdictional wetlands. As a result of his study, Cassagnol forwarded several letters to George Baragona of DER requesting that Mr. Baragona, an expert hydrologist, review his determination and ratify his conclusions. The Gratzers, on advice of counsel, allowed their building contractor to complete compaction of the house pad and begin preparations to pour the house floor. The septic tank contractor for the Gratzers completed installation of the tank and drain field prior to July 1st. After the Gratzers had recommenced construction, on approximately July 10, 1992, DER, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) which ultimately formed the basis for the Consent Order in this case. The Gratzers immediately ceased further construction on the property and sought further negotiations with DER. Shortly after the NOV was issued, George Baragona reviewed the information, studies and plats submitted by Mr. Cassagnol regarding the ten-year backstop. Baragona made a determination of the ten-year backstop at a point more landward than Cassagnol's. It appears from the plat submitted at hearing, that Baragona's ten- year backstop line runs along the base of the fill roadway; his testimony, however, indicated that his backstop line dipped in and out near the roadway, and he simply chose the baseline of the fill road as his "worst case scenario". Baragona, because of the house pad, was required to extrapolate a line through the house pad, resulting in approximately half of the house pad area being in jurisdictional wetlands. The result of further negotiations between the parties was the Consent Order which is the subject matter of this proceeding. As settlement, the Gratzers agreed to Baragona's "worst case scenario" ten-year backstop, placing approximately half of the house pad was in DER jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the settlement, the Gratzers agreed to, and have paid, a fine of $1,400.00 to DER and have granted a conservation easement over a large portion of the remainder of their property, resulting in an 11.6 to 1 ratio of conservation easement to impacted wetlands, slightly above DER's guideline 10 to 1 ratio. In investigating the alleged violations at the subject property, DER reviewed the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that they were not great, in light of the surrounding area and its already high level of development. In making this determination, DER reviewed property lists, maps and other facts to determine the level of current development. In reviewing the alleged violations, DER also considered whether or not this project would have been able to get a permit had the Gratzers sought a permit prior to any construction. It was DER's determination that the project would have been permittable under the criteria in Chapter 403, in conjunction with the mitigation offered at the site. Finally, in its review and study of the alleged violations, DER determined there was no evidence that this project would have any adverse impact on water quality. DER made a determination that this was a "low to medium" violation, and that the impacts were properly addressed through the Consent Order which imposed the $1,400.00 fine and secured the conservation easement. Fill Road Issue A small road or driveway existed on the site at the time the Gratzers purchased the property, extending from Stoner Road from the south, to the center of their property. Although Baragona indicated the DER modelled backstop line did not always extend to the driveway, he said it sometimes appeared to "bump up" to the eastern edge of the driveway. Baragona could not say with absolute certainty where the 10 year backstop would be on the east side of the site if the driveway were not present. The type of wetland vegetation on the Gratzer property would be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules adopted pursuant to the 1984 Warren F. Henderson Wetlands Act (Section 403.91, et seq.), but would not be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules applicable prior to October 1, 1984. If the driveway on the Gratzer property was installed prior to October 1, 1984, it is legal, but if it was installed after that date it is illegal because there is no evidence it ever was properly permitted. DER does not allow illegally filled areas to cut off the extent of its wetland jurisdiction. Therefore, if the driveway on the Gratzer property were placed in DER jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, the road itself could not act as a 10 year backstop cutting off DER wetland jurisdiction to the west. There was conflicting evidence as to when the driveway was placed on the property. James Hartman, who sold the property to the Gratzers, testified he built the driveway in 1978 and 1979. William Kuyper, an expert in aerial photography interpretation, testified that based on his review of aerial photos, the road had been placed on site sometime between January 6, 1986, and March, 1989. The weight of the evidence indicates the driveway was probably placed on site before October 1, 1984, and therefore did not require a DER permit. First, the former landowner's testimony that he built the road in 1978 and 1979, must be considered more reliable than an interpretation of aerial photos taken from 12,000 feet in the air, in spite of the expertise of the photographic interpreter. A possible explanation for why the driveway "appeared" in the 1989 aerial photo but not in the 1986 aerial photo is that the road may have been disturbed, or new fill put on the road sometime between 1986 and 1989, causing the road to be more visible in 1989. Even if the 10 year backstop were to be determined without the driveway present, it would not be significantly different. While DER's 10 year backstop line "bumps up" against the road in places, it does not "bump up" in other places along the driveway, but in order to be conservative the line was placed along with driveway in all areas. The modelled location of the line north of the housepad where there is no driveway is consistent with where the line is modelled south of the housepad where the driveway is located. The Society and its Concerns The Society's corporate status was not controverted. CFWS members have been patrolling the Lake Jessup/Gee Creek area and other wetland areas and have found what they believe are violations of the law and rules intended to protect wetland resources. Although neither Michael Mingea nor his expert witness have been on the Gratzer property, they have been in the immediate area and are concerned about the cumulative impact of small dredging projects, like the Gratzers, which projects are routinely reported to DER by the Society. Beginning in May 1991, the Society corresponded regularly with Secretary Browner at DER and Secretary Williams at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and their respective staffs, regarding what the Society perceived were violations occurring through lax enforcement. The Society believed, though review of HRS and DER files, that the Gratzers' project included a septic tank placed in jurisdictional wetlands. This was not established; rather, the septic tank was erroneously placed inside a setback line, but outside the jurisdictional line, and a variance was readily obtained from HRS. DER does not have direct jurisdiction over septic tank permits and HRS' authority is derived from the statutes, not from DER. The Society's position regarding the Gratzer project is based in substantial part on its assertion that the fill road was illegally placed and that DER's jurisdiction extended through the entire property. The Society, however, did not rebut the sound evidence by George Baragona of the 10-year backstop. Nor did it present competent evidence of any alleged water quality violations. Only one other actual violation of permit requirements was established, and DER has required the developer to move the project from jurisdictional wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Consent Order that is the subject of this proceeding be adopted as Final Agency Action. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0104 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners: 1.-3. Adopted in preliminary statement and paragraph 19. 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 9.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13. Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 14.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. 17.-18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 20.-22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23.-25. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 31.-32. Rejected as summary of testimony or argument, rather than findings of fact. 33.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. [Section VI, pp 19-22 includes unnumbered paragraphs summarizing testimony, rather than findings of fact]. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mingea, President Central Florida Wetlands Society P.O. Box 2826 Orlando, FL 32802 Rex D. Ware, Esquire P.O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing relating to the issue of jurisdiction, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 28, 1979, respondents T.V. Rodriquez and Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on a 2.3 acre area located within a 495 acre planned unit development in Orlando. The 2.3 acre tract is located in a cypress swamp area in the northeast portion of the development site. The application sought authority to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert, and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material. All of the construction activity was to be confined to the 2.3 acre tract which, as noted above, was a cypress swamp area interior to the project boundaries. While there were no other property owners immediately adjacent to the cypress swamp upon which the dredging and filling was to occur, the applicants did provide for notification purposes the names of two property owners which were the closest, although not adjacent, to the proposed project site. Neither the petitioners nor the intervenors in this proceeding were among the two names provided. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and, on April 5, 1980, requested further infor- mation. Upon receipt of this information, an employee of DER, Jim Morgan, conducted a field inspection of the dredge and fill site on May 10, 1979. It was Mr. Morgan's conclusion that the proposed project would result in the elimination of approxi- mately three percent of the wetlands associated with the eastern boundary of the 495 acre development, and would not significantly impact the remaining portion of the wetland community. Mr. Morgan recommended that the application be approved, with two specific conditions. One condition pertained to the containment of turbidity at the project site if the site is inundated during construction. The other condition pertained to a proposed swale for outfall of a planned ditch system for the drainage of the 495 acre planned unit development. On May 18, 1979, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued Permit No. 48-18682-4E to respondents to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material suitable for use as-a golf course foundation. The permit contained the specific conditions recommended by Mr. Morgan. Specific Condition Number 1 reads as follows: "(1) The drainage plan for this proposed 495 acre planned unit development will require the lowering of the water table via way of a planned ditch system, thus making development feasible. This ditch system will ultimately [sici discharge to an existing county canal via way of a proposed swale, which is exempt from this department's per- mitting pursuant to Chapter 17-4.04(10)(k). A swale conveys water only during and immediately after the advent of a storm. This installation must conform to this explicit definition, otherwise, additional dredge and fill permits will be required, including the entire development's drainage facility. Upon completion of the development, this department shall be notified and periodic inspections will be performed by the department's staff to determine if the outfall conforms with the definition of a swale." By letters to DER dated August 20, 1979, the petitioners herein stated that they had just been informed on August 17, 1979, of the issuance of the subject permit to the respondents. Their original letters to the DER, as well as their amended and restated petition, claim that, as owners of property located adjacent to the property upon which the drainage project would be conducted pursuant to the subject permit, they were entitled to notice prior to the issuance of the permit and that their substantial interest will be affected by the drainage project authorized by said permit. The petitioners Frances Bandy and Charles R. Bandy own Lot 14 in Golden Acres which is a considerable distance from the 2.3 acre tract upon which respondents are permitted to conduct dredging and filling activities. The petitioners Anna and Lee Rowe and Fay M. Handy own Lots 20 and 21 in Golden Acres, as well as a five acre lake. These lots and lake are even further from the permitted dredge and fill site. None of the petitioners own property which is adjacent to the permitted 2.3 acre site. Betty J. Hardy, Wayne Hardy and Vista Landscaping Inc. moved to intervene in this proceeding by motion dated March 5, 1980. An amended motion to intervene was filed on March 17, 1980, adding Julian T. Hardy as a named party intervenor. The intervenors own and have a business interest in property located a considerable distance south of the permitted 2.3 acres. The intervenors conduct a wholesale nursery business on their property. Their complaint lies with the effect that the proposed drainage of the entire 495 acre development and the alleged drainage ditch located on property contiguous to their property will have on their property and business interests. As of the time of the hearing on March 18, 1980, construction pursuant to the permit issued on May 18, 1979, was approximately ninety-five percent (95 percent) complete.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cleatous J. Simmons Lowndes, Drosdick and Doster Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roger D. Schwenke Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith and Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Stanley J. Niego Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Application for consumptive use permit No. 75-00225 is a request for an existing use to be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer from two different wells. These two wells are located in the Hillsborough Basin and in Polk County. The property contiguous to the wells encompasses approximately 80.9 acres. The water is to be used for citrus processing and disposed of off site. The permit seeks, for average daily withdrawal, 2.98 million gallons per day for one well and 1.566 million gallons per day for the other well for a total average daily withdrawal of 3.864 million gallons per day. For maximum daily withdrawal the permit seeks 4.096 million gallons per day for one well and 2.792 million gallons per day for the other well for a total maximum daily withdrawal of 6.888 million gallons per day. The amount of water sought to be consumptively used by this application greatly exceeds the water crop of the subject lands owned by applicant. Mr. John C. Jennings and Mr. William Sunderland, owners of property adjacent to the Kraft property, appeared in their own behalf and stated that they felt that their wells were being hurt because of the large quantities of water pumped by Kraft. They did not attempt to offer expert testimony nor did they claim to be hydrologists. They did note that each had substantial problems with their wells running out of water.
Recommendation It does not appear that the district has had a reasonable opportunity to examine the objections and comments of Messers. Jennings and Sunderland with regard to the effect of the applied for consumptive use on their property. These objections were apparently raised for the first time at the hearing. As noted in paragraph 6, if the wells of Messers. Jennings and Sunderland are substantially affected in an adverse manner by applicant's use of such large quantities of water, such a use would not seem to be a reasonable, beneficial use as is required for permit unless further conditions were placed upon the permit. Therefore, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District staff further investigate the effect of the applied for consumptive use on the wells located on the property of John C. Jennings and William Sunderland prior to the Board taking formal action on this application. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P. 0. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Douglas T. Moring, Esquire Kraftco Corporation Kraftco Court Glenview, Illinois 60025
The Issue This proceeding concerns an Intent to Issue a dredge and fill permit given by the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") to Respondent, Edmund Burke ("Burke"), for construction of a retaining wall and wooden pile-supported bridge crossing a portion of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The ultimate issues for determination are whether Petitioner has standing to challenge the proposed DER action, and if so, whether the proposed agency action complies with the requirements of Sections 403.91 through 403.938, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edmund Burke, on January 15, 1988, filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") application number 431441608 for a permit to construct a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge approximately 80 feet long and 10 feet wide connecting the mainland with an island in the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The bridge was to span a 50 foot canal or creek ("channel") in the River. One of two retaining walls was to be located on the mainland peninsula. The other retaining wall was to be located on the island (the "initial project"). Between January 15, 1988, and April 28, 1989, the initial project was modified by Respondent, Burke, to satisfy DER concerns over potential impacts, including secondary impacts, relevant to the application. The width of the bridge was reduced from 10 feet to 6 feet. The retaining wall initially planned at the point where the bridge intersects the island was eliminated. The retaining wall on the mainland side of the bridge was relocated above mean high water. Sixty feet of the proposed bridge runs from mean high water to mean high water. An additional 10 feet on each end of the bridge is located above mean high water. The project remained a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge (the "modified project"). The Intent to Issue, dated April 28, 1989, indicated that the modifications required by DER had been made, that the modifications satisfied DER concerns relevant to the initial project, and that DER intended to issue a permit for construction of the modified project. The elimination of the retaining wall obviated any necessity for backfill on the island. The reduction in the width of the bridge virtually eliminated the secondary impacts on the surrounding habitat, resulted in less shading of the water, and precluded vehicular traffic over the bridge. The final modification that was "necessary in order for [DER] to approve this application" was the reduction in the width of the bridge from 10 feet to 6 feet. Petitioner's Exhibit 17. DER's requirement for this final modification was communicated to Mr. Cangianelli in a telephone conversation on April 6, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), and memorialized in a letter to Respondent, Burke, on April 14, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). The final modification was made, and the Intent to Issue was written on April 28, 1989. Petitioner's Case. Property commonly known as Harbor Estates is adjacent to the site of the modified project. A constructed harbor and contiguous park are located within the boundaries of Harbor Estates. Both are used by residents of Harbor Estates and both are proximate to the site of the modified project. The harbor entrance and site of the modified project are located on opposite sides of a peninsula approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 125 feet long. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that can navigate under the modified project need only travel the length of the peninsula, a distance of approximately 125 feet through the channel, in order to reach the harbor entrance. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that cannot navigate under the proposed bridge must travel around the island, a distance of approximately 1800 feet in the main body of the St. Lucie River, in order to reach the harbor entrance. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that prior to the construction of the bridge the channel was navigable by boats not capable of passing under the bridge after the bridge was completed. Petitioner, Harbor Estates Associates, Inc., submitted no evidence to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of modifications required by DER. Of Petitioner's 26 exhibits, Exhibits 1-19, 24 and 25 were relevant to the initial project but were not material to claims in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of the modifications required by DER. Petitioner's Exhibit 20 was cumulative of DER's Exhibit 6B. Petitioner's Exhibits 22 and 26, respectively, concern a 1980 bridge permit and a Proposed Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County, Florida. Petitioner offered no expert testimony in support of the pleadings in the Petition including assertions that: the modified project will have a direct adverse impact upon water quality and the welfare or property of others; the channel is navigable by deep-draft motor vessels; the modified project will result in shoaling that will have to be corrected at the expense of Harbor Estates; the modified project will result in prohibited destruction of mangroves; or that the modified project will cause any of the other specific adverse effects described in the Petition. The testimony of fact witnesses called by Petitioner was not material to Petitioner's claims that modifications required by DER were inadequate. The testimony of Bob Nicholas was relevant to allegations of prior violations but was not dispositive of any issue concerning the adequacy of modifications required by DER. The testimony of William Burr was admitted as rebuttal testimony relevant to precedents in the general area of the modified project but failed to address the adequacy of modifications required by DER. Petitioner consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the applicable law, the proper scope of the formal hearing, and the distinction between argument and evidence. Petitioner repeatedly attempted to establish violations of laws not relevant to the proceeding including local laws and other environmental laws. Petitioner attempted to establish issues by arguing with witnesses during direct and cross examination, and by repeatedly making unsworn ore tenus representations of fact. There was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact in this proceeding because Petitioner failed to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings. Petitioner presented no evidence refuting Respondent, Burke's, showing that the modifications required by DER were adequate to assure water quality and the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. Evidence presented by Petitioner was not material to the issue of whether the modifications required by DER were adequate for the purposes of the law applicable to this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose, primarily to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or approval of the proposed activity. Respondents' Case. The island to be accessed by the modified project is approximately 2.5 acres in area and contains mostly wetland. The island is approximately 900 feet long. The portion of the island that is beyond DER permit jurisdiction is less than 200 feet long and less than 50 feet wide. The site of the modified project is located in Class III waters. Respondent, Burke, provided adequate assurances that portions of the modified project not extending over open water will be constructed upon property owned by him. The single retaining wall to be constructed at the southeastern terminus of the modified project will be constructed landward of DER jurisdiction. The modified project permits neither the installation of water or electrical conduits to the island nor any excavation, filling, or construction on the island. Respondent, Burke, must provide notification to DER before any such activity is begun. The bridge will accommodate no vehicular traffic larger or heavier than a golf cart. Golf cart access is necessary in order to accommodate a physical disability of Respondent, Burke. The modified project employs adequate methods to control turbidity, limit mangrove alteration on the island, and limit potential collisions with manatees. Vegetation, including mangroves, will not be removed. Incidental, selective trimming of vegetation will be allowed to create access to the island. The single retaining wall to be constructed on the mainland will be located landward of mangroves. Turbidity curtains will be used during construction to minimize short term water quality impacts. The modified project requires turbidity screens to be installed if there is any indication of sedimentation. No mechanical equipment will be located on the island during construction. No boats will be moored at the site of the modified project. The modified project will cause no significant downstream shoaling or silting. The site of the modified project is located approximately 15 feet from an existing fishing platform. No significant shoaling has been associated with that platform. The impacts associated with the modified project are similar to the impacts associated with single family docks in the area. No significant shoaling has been associated with such docks. The modified project is not a navigational hazard. The elevation is sufficient to accommodate small boats, canoes, and row boats. Reflective devices are required to alert night boat traffic of its presence. There is adequate clearance under the bridge to prevent obstruction. DER reviewed all applicable rules and criteria in considering the modified project. The modified project will have no adverse effect upon public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. The modified project will not adversely impact the conservation of fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The modified project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The modified project will not adversely impact fishing value or marine productivity in the area. The modified project will have no adverse impact upon recreational values in the vicinity. The modified project was reviewed in a manner that is customary for similar projects reviewed by DER. It is common practice for DER employees, as they did in this case, to rely upon opinions of other DER professionals in formulating an intent to issue. Other projects within DER jurisdiction in the general geographic area of the modified project and within the same region were considered in DER's review process. Other docks and marinas have been constructed and are proposed for construction within the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Bridges including pedestrian bridges have been and are proposed to be constructed in Martin County. DER did not require a hydrographic study because the modified project was considered a minor project. DER review took into account the intended future use of the island property and DER's past experience with Respondent, Burke. As part of its review, DER reviewed a conceptual bridge to a single family residence on the island which would not require any fill or construction of retaining walls. In addition, DER considered previous violations on the island under Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.070, 17-4.160, and 17-4.530 in connection with an earlier permit that expired before the initial project was begun. Respondent, Burke, provided reasonable assurances that he is the owner of the site of the proposed project. Respondent, Burke, signed DER's property ownership affidavit and submitted a survey. DER's Intent to Issue does not authorize any construction in any area within the jurisdiction of DER other than the modified project. The Intent to Issue constitutes compliance with state water quality standards. DER has not received any requests for a jurisdictional determination in the general geographic area of the modified project. No enforcement action has been initiated by DER or at the request of a third party against Respondent, Burke, for alleged violations of DER rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order on the merits issuing the requested permit and awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1990. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Although most of Petitioner's proposed findings were cast in the form of "fact", they were in substance argument and rejected accordingly. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in part in Finding 1 Findings as to ownership are rejected as beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Finding as to the late filed exhibit is rejected as irrelevant. 2-4, 10-12, Rejected as either irrelevant 16, or not supported by the record. 5 and 6, 37, 40 Rejected as unsupported by 42 the record. 7, 8, 15 Rejected as irrelevant 17, 21-29 and immaterial 9, 13, 14, 18-20 Rejected as immaterial 30-33, 35 and 36 37(a), 38, 39, 41, 48 20(A) Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial except the last sentence is included in Finding 13 34 Included in Finding 12 Rejected as not supported by the record, hypothetical and immaterial. Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent, Burke, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent. Burke's, Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 15 and 16 Included in Finding 1 17, 26, 27 Included in Finding 2 18, 48 Included in Findings 15 and 16 19, 30, 31, 42 Included in Finding 13 20, 21, 44 Included in Findings 4 and 14 22, 23, 25, 32 Included in Finding 17 24 Included in Finding 16 25, 36-38 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 18 Included in Finding 3 Included in Finding 10 Included in Finding 19 35, 39, 43 Included in Finding 20 40, 41 Included in Finding 11 45-47 and 49 Included in Finding 16 51 and 52 Included in Findings 6-8 54 Included in Finding 5 and 8 50 and 53 Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Respondent, DER, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Included in Findings 1 and 2 3 Included in Finding 10 4 and 5 Included in Finding 16 6, 9 Included in Finding 2 7 and 8 Included in Findings 9 and 11 10 Included in Finding 13 11 Included in Finding 15 Included in Finding 17 and 14 Included in Finding 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia E. Comer Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia V. Bartell Qualified Representative 615 S.W. St. Lucie Street Stuart, FL 34997 J. A. Jurgens Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 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 in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On or about July 9, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow off-premises sale of beer and wine (2APS) was filed on behalf of Petitioner for property located at 2030 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 4, 1987. At that hearing, the Petitioner's representative was not allowed to give rebuttal testimony, although the Board's by-laws do allow the applicant to rebut testimony in opposition to the application, and rebuttal is, in fact, usually allowed. The Petitioner's representative did not specifically request an opportunity to rebut the opponent's testimony, but assumed he would be given an opportunity to speak before the Board voted. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioner on August 18, 1987. With this application, Petitioner seeks approval to sell beer and wine at a 7-11 convenience store. By subsequent application and approval of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 1987 Petitioner has been granted a conditional use for 1APS, package sale of beer only. However, this 1APS application and approval is not at issue in this case. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of a church and several residences.
