The Issue The issue here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, to construct an addition to his existing boat house of approximately 450 square feet, and an addition to his existing chain link fence, both of which are located on Lake Down, Florida. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioners, Milton and Gail Hess, and David Storey and others, have opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in Case No. 80-1769, Milton Hess, is an adjacent landowner to the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, with property located on Lake Down, near Windermere, in Orange County, Florida. The Petitioners in Case No. 80-1770, David Storey and others, are also landowners on Lake Down. Applicant's parcel is located on Down Point, which is a peninsular extending from the Lakes's southern shore. The project as contemplated by the Applicant is the construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot unenclosed addition on the north side of an existing dock/boathouse combination located on Lake Down. The 450 square foot addition is to be utilized as a storage room adjacent to the boathouse portion of his existing structure. The present structure has a total surface area of approximately 825 square feet. Additionally, by amendment to the application made on August 13, 1980, Applicant proposes to construct a chain link fence from the south property line to the dock facility. Lake Down is one of the waterbodies that constitutes the Butler Chain- of Lakes. The Lake is characterized by outstanding water quality and diversified biological resources. The Chain-of Lakes is widely recognized as the outstanding aquatic resource in the State, as far as water quality is concerned. Development on Lake Down is light, with widely scattered residential units separated by expanses of citrus groves. The construction of the addition will not significantly impact Lake Down or the Butler Chain-of Lakes, either on a long-term or short-term basis. The shading effect of the structure will result in a slight decline of rooted aguatic vegetation. However, such decline should be minimal. Further, reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed project would not result in any violations of State water quality criteria or standards. The existing dock structure now obstructs a portion of the view of the lake enjoyed by Petitioner Hess. However, by constructing the proposed addition on the north side of the existing boathouse, no further impediment of the view will occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a permit be granted by the Department of Environmental Regulation to Walker G. Miller to construct an addition to his boathouse and a chain link Fence on Lake Down as more specifically described in his amended application. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David Storey Route 3, Box 929 Orlando, Florida 32811 Jack Ezzard and Kathryn Ezzard Route 3, Box 925 Orlando, Florida 32811 Tari Kazaros Route 3, Box 924 Orlando, Florida 32811 Mrs. H. D. Barrarly Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Paula M. Harrison Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Ava Careton Route 3, Box 926 Orlando, Florida 32811 Nikki Clagh Route 3, Box 928 Orlando, Florida 32811 Milton and Gail Hess 4413 Down Point Lane Windermere, Florida 32786 Walker G. Miller Post Office Box 348 Windermere, Florida 32786 B. J. Heller, Esquire 644 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Richard D. Lee, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Mr. Swiger was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer on March 29, 1982, and issued certificate number 44-82-002-02. Mr. Swiger was employed as a patrol officer with the Police Department of the City of Lake Worth, Florida. On the evening of May 8, 1988, Officer Swiger and Officer Lorenzo Odum were patrolling the south end of City of Lake Worth as part of an overtime detail which had been established by Department management to deter prostitution and drug traffic in that area. Officer Swiger and Officer Odum were in uniform, in a marked police car. Officer Swiger was driving. Officer Swiger saw Rickey Spencer walking on the east side of Dixie Highway; he slowed the police car, parked it in a driveway near Mr. Spencer and then exited the car while Officer Odum remained in the passenger seat. When Officer Swiger approached Mr. Spencer, Swiger asked Spencer what he was doing in Swiger's zone; Swiger had warned Spencer not to be in that area. Officer Swiger strongly disliked Mr. Spencer, because Officer Swiger believed Mr. Spencer was a male prostitute. Whether true or not, Spencer has a reputation among Lake Worth police officers as one who dresses as a woman, engages men in oral sex and while their pants are around their ankles often lifts their wallets. Officers had been informed at meetings held at shift changes that city officials were unhappy about the prostitutes on Dixie Highway and wanted them off the street. After receiving no adequate explanation from Mr. Spencer as to why Spencer was on Dixie Highway that evening, Officer Swiger forcefully punched Mr. Spencer in the abdomen with his fist, which caused Mr. Spencer pain and brief difficulty in breathing. 1/ After regaining his breath, Spencer asked Officer Swiger if he were under arrest. Swiger told Spencer that he did not want Spencer in the area. After hearing the sound of the blow, Officer Odum got out of the police car and looked where Officer Swiger and Mr. Spencer stood. Officer Odum told Swiger to "cut it out" because the use of physical force against Mr. Spencer was inappropriate. At that point Mr. Spencer was told by Officer Swiger to "get out of here" and when Mr. Spencer turned to walk away Officer Swiger, who was wearing black combat boots, kicked Mr. Spencer in the buttocks with enough force to lift him off the ground. Officer Swiger and Officer Odum then got back into their police car and drove on. At no time during the encounter between Officer Swiger and Mr. Spencer did Mr. Spencer verbally or physically threaten any violence to Officer Swiger. Officer Odum did not report the incident between Officer Swiger and Mr. Spencer to the Police Department, and Mr. Spencer did not report it to the police or file any complaint at that time. Later, an unrelated incident occurred which caused the management of the Police Department to try to terminate Officer Swiger. Thereafter, Sergeant Ryan and Lieutenant Garson learned of the incident with Ricky Spencer and encouraged Mr. Spencer to bring the present complaint. In May, 1988, Officer Swiger was involved in a department operation which attempted to make controlled buys of beer by minors in the Lake Worth area. As part of that operation, Officer Swiger observed an employee of a Cumberland Farms convenience store sell beer to a minor who was working with the police. The store clerk was Mr. Muhammad Sami Iqbal. The police took no action at that time, because they were engaging in similar attempts to buy beer at other locations. By experience the police knew that it would interfere with their operation if any clerks were served with a Notice to Appear in court to answer the charge of unauthorized sale of beer to minors. Clerks served would quickly put the word out about the operation to other store clerks by telephone. Cheryl Ann Daggert was the manager for the Cumberland Farms Store where Mr. Iqbal worked. On the morning of May 18, 1988, at about 10:30 a.m., Officer Swiger and another officer came to the store and tried to determine when Mr. Iqbal would have his next shift, so that they could serve him with the Notice to Appear at that time. Ms. Daggert told Officer Swiger that Mr. Iqbal would next be at work at 7:00 p.m. that day. Although she did not have Mr. Iqbal's address, Ms. Daggert gave Officer Swiger Mr. Iqbal's home telephone number. Officer Swiger then left the store. Swiger was anxious to serve Mr. Iqbal because he had been off work for three days since the buy at Mr. Iqbal's store, and management at the department wanted to wrap up the operation by serving all the Notices to Appear as soon as possible. Mr. Iqbal reported to work, but was immediately terminated by Ms. Daggert for having sold alcohol to a minor. She told Mr. Iqbal that the police would be looking for him. Shortly after the shift began Ms. Daggert's boyfriend, Jesus Nieves, took Mr. Iqbal to the police station so Mr. Iqbal could take care of whatever the police wanted to see him about. The police officer on duty at the station told Mr. Iqbal that Officer Swiger was not on duty and to return tomorrow. At about 8:30 p.m. Office Swiger returned to the store. Ms. Daggert was still there and her boyfriend, Jesus Nieves, was also there to keep her company. There were five to seven customers either purchasing items in the store or there to pay for gasoline from the store's gasoline pumps. At that time Officer Swiger asked Ms. Daggert about Mr. Iqbal's address, and she again told Officer Swiger that she did not have it. Mr. Nieves told Officer Swiger that he had taken Mr. Iqbal to the police station earlier that day, and that Mr. Iqbal would go back to the police station the next morning. Officer Swiger then became angry and told Ms. Daggert that he was going to lock the store until he obtained the information that he wanted. Officer Swiger ordered the customers in the store to leave, including Mr. Nieves, then told Ms. Daggert that he would not permit her to accept payment from customers from items in the store or to activate the store's gasoline pumps until he obtained the information he wanted: Mr. Iqbal's address. As a result, some of the customers were unable to pay for items they had removed from the store shelves. Ms. Daggert also had to return a customer's $10.00 prepayment for gasoline because she had been forbidden by Officer Swiger to permit the customer to pump gasoline. In deference to Officer Swiger's directives the customers in the store, as well as Mr. Nieves, exited. Outside the store, Mr. Nieves told several customers that the store was closed and that they would have to wait. After all the customers and Mr. Nieves had left, Officer Swiger locked the door from the inside and angrily told Ms. Daggert that the store would remain locked until she gave him Mr. Iqbal's address. Ms. Daggert did not consent to being locked in the store and she was not free to leave the store. Officer Swiger told Ms. Daggert to call the Cumberland Farm's Office and to get him the information he wanted. Ms. Daggert told Officer Swiger that the office was closed at that time. Ms. Daggert telephoned her supervisor, Keith Newmark, at his home, to explain that a police officer had closed the store and that it would remain closed until he obtain Mr. Iqbal's address. Ms. Daggert gave the telephone to Officer Swiger who spoke to Mr. Newmark. Officer Swiger then repeated to Mr. Newmark that he needed Mr. Iqbal's address, and that the store would remain closed until Officer Swiger got the information he wanted. Mr. Newmark questioned Officer Swiger's authority to take that kind of action. Mr. Newmark did have some records at his home, in his company car. He retrieved them, and found he had Mr. Iqbal's address, which he gave to Officer Swiger. About 20 to 30 minutes after the convenience store had been closed and locked, Officer Swiger unlocked the door and permitted Ms. Daggert to resume business. Officer Swiger had received no formal training for conducting beer buy projects, but he had learned from other officers similar tactics to obtain information about persons who had sold beer to minors, when they needed to serve those persons with Notices to Appear. Other clerks and store managers are generally uncooperative in such matters.
Recommendation As a consequence, under Rule 11B-27.005(5)(d), it is recommended that the certification of Mr. Swiger be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 1st day of October, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on matters officially recognized, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner, The Santa Fe Lake Dwellers Association, Inc. (SFLDA), is a Florida corporation, not-for-profit, which evolved from a voluntary association of area families contemporaneously with and in reaction to Intervenor's first activities on site. Its members are mostly riparian residents and owners although, it does have a number of members who reside in surrounding areas. SFLDA was formed to protect Lake Santa Fe. The purpose of the association is to protect natural resources and to inform those conducting activities around the lake to abide by rules, regulations, and procedures. The President of SFLDA, Harold Hill, expressed particular concern about protection of lifetime investments in property on the lake and property values. SFLDA has approximately 380 "family group" members, of whom approximately one-half live on Lake Santa Fe or on canals to the lake. Mr. Hill and other members of SFLDA use Lake Santa Fe waters for swimming, fishing, and recreation. Use of the waters of Lake Santa Fe and Little Lake Santa Fe is not restricted to property owners who abut the lake. There is public access to the lakes and they can be used by anyone who has a boat. Intervenor, Santa Fe Pass, Inc. (SFP), is a Florida corporation, which owns the property at issue. SFP acquired fee title to the land in its own name on April 28, 1978. Some or all of the present share holders in SFP purchased the land in the name of a trustee on January 9, 1976. The property at issue is a development property of approximately 110 acres located in Alachua County on a peninsula that almost separates Lake Santa Fe from Little Lake Santa Fe and is commonly known as the Santa Fe Pass. The Santa Fe Lakes are navigable and are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters under Chapter 17-4.304(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code, and are surrounded by Alachua, Clay, Bradford, and Putnam Counties. On November 13, 1978, a site visit was conducted on the subject property for purposes of establishing the dredge and fill jurisdictional limits of DER and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Those present on the site inspection that day included Melvin H. Rector, the DER representative; another DER employee; Don Gowan, representative for the Corps of Engineers; William B. Watson, III, a co-owner; Boone Kuersteiner, an attorney for SFP; and Benjiman Breedlove, environmental consultant for SFP. At the November 13, 1978, site visit, DER made a determination of the extent of its dredge and fill jurisdiction under Section 403.817, Florida Statutes, in the area of the subject property. This determination was depicted and memorialized on an aerial photograph of the site and was signed by those present, including Mr. Rector on behalf of DER. Mr. Rector, the DER representative on site on November 13, 1978, used the following method to establish the location of the limit of DER's jurisdiction: Jurisdiction was based on the dominance of certain vegetative species listed in Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed on that date. The listed species that were dominant in the jurisdictional area were a fringe of grass called maiden cane along the lake, and further landward, two forested species, pond cypress and swamp tupelo. Dominance was based on factors of whether listed species versus non-listed species covered a greater aerial extent in the canopy cover, made up more than 50 percent of the species by number, and had a greater biomass or weight. At that time DER had no authority to use soil types to establish jurisdiction. The line set by DER was based only on the vegetative index and not on the ordinary high water line. The filling which had occurred on the site prior to November 13, 1978, had no impact on where DER located its jurisdictional line, nor did it impair the ability of DER to determine where the line should be located. Any removal of canopy or subcanopy species landward of the line prior to that date also did not affect placement of the line. If no filling had occurred on Santa Fe Pass prior to November 13, 1978, DER's representative Rector would have located the jurisdictional line in the same place as he did on November 13, 1978. An abandoned powerline easement runs across the subject SFP property from the southwest area of the property to the northeast portion of the property, where it meets the lake. Prior to any filling by SFP or its immediate predecessor in interest, the easement area had been cleared of trees, and fill had been placed in some areas along the easement strip. At the time of the November 13, 1978, jurisdictional determination, the easement strip was dry and it was possible to drive a car down it to the lake. The easement strip was not paved, but had dirt and vegetation on its surface. Portions of the powerline easement strip were filled prior to January of 1975. There was no new fill on the powerline easement strip at the time of the November 13, 1978, jurisdictional determination. At that time, portions of the powerline easement strip contained old fill material covered by upland species of vegetation. On November 13, 1978, DER concluded that, based on vegetation in and adjacent to the powerline corridor on Santa Fe Pass, the corridor was entirely outside DER's jurisdiction. A low area or depression, also referred to as a pond, is located in the northeasterly portion of the subject SFP property, southwest of the portion of the powerline easement strip that extends into the lake. No fill was placed between the depressed area or pond and the lake prior to November 13, 1978. (Shortly after that date, fill was placed in that area.) There was no other physical alternation of the area near the depression or pond prior to the date of the jurisdictional determination. At the time of the jurisdictional determination, the depression or pond was separated from the lake by a natural low berm, the borders of which were vegetated and undisturbed. The depression or pond was not exchanging water with the lake at that time, although at other times there has been an occasional exchange of waters between the two. In addition, jurisdictional vegetative species were not dominant in the depression or pond area at the time of the jurisdictional determination. On November 13, 1978, DER did not assert jurisdiction over the low area or pond in the northeast section of the property because it was not connected to waters of the state and was separated from the lake by a low natural berm. DER's representative Rector inspected the jurisdictional line numerous times after November 13, 1978, including an inspection of the line as marked by the owner's consultant to make sure the line was accurate. Other DER representatives inspected the line in May of 1979 and also thought the line or the portions of the November 13, 1978, line they inspected were accurate. On June 11, 1979, DER representative David Scott wrote SFP that, after a recent DER inspection, there were no problems with the present DER jurisdictional line. Since the DER line was established on November 13, 1978, SFP has relied on its location to develop the project, to conduct filling activities landward of the location of the line, to create a site plan and plat, and to make sales representations to potential buyers. From the owner's standpoint, the purpose of establishing the line was to determine where it would and would not need DER dredge and fill permits to develop the land. Landowners use DER jurisdictional determinations for planning purposes. SFP has expended more than $100,000 for development reasons in good faith reliance on the line's location. In conjunction with 1984 revisions to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, DER adopted Rule 17-4.022(8), Florida Administrative Code. This was a "grandfathering" rule provided for landowners who had had DER jurisdictional determinations done, so that they could continue planning with a previously fixed jurisdictional line. On January 8, 1985, SFP requested that DER validate the 1978 jurisdictional determination for the subject SFP property in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-4.022(8). Attached to this request was the aerial photograph signed by DER employee Rector and others upon which the November 13, 1978, DER jurisdictional determination was graphically displayed. On July 9, 1985, DER issued a letter validating the November 13, 1978, jurisdictional determination under Rule 17- 4.022(8), Florida Administrative Code. Exhibit 1 to that letter was a validated version of the aerial photograph depicting the 1978 determination. The validated line is identical to the line established on November 13, 1978. DER staff followed normal procedures in validating the Santa Fe Pass line and, having done so, concluded that all validation criteria were met. On March 11, 1986, DER notified SFLDA by certified mail that on July 9, 1985, DER had validated its November 13, 1978, jurisdictional determination on the SFP property. SFLDA timely requested an administrative hearing on March 19, 1986. Although some SFLDA officers and members had conversations with DER personnel between July 9, 1985, and March 11, 1986, none of those conversations was sufficient to provide SFLDA with a clear point of entry into the process. In sum: The totality of the credible evidence supports the ultimate finding of fact that the DER jurisdictional line established on November 13, 1978, was accurately established and SFP is entitled to have that line validated.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order validating the jurisdictional line as determined on November 13, 1978. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 27th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1047 The following are the-specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact proposed by each of the parties. By way of preface it should be noted that the evidence in this case consists of three days of testimony by numerous witnesses, some expert and some lay, with many different points of view. Some of the witnesses had an opportunity to view the subject property carefully on numerous occasions over a period of several years. Others only viewed it casually once or twice. Some gave the property a studied, scientific examination. Others gave it only a casual, curious glance. Some of the witnesses have an interest in what happens to the property. Others do not. Some witnesses were able to relate what they had observed with precision and detail. Others were somewhat vague, uncertain, and ambiguous. These many differences have resulted in a record which contains a great deal of conflicting factual testimony as well as a great deal of conflicting expert opinion testimony. The record also contains a great deal of what might best be described as "vague" testimony to which little weight has been given. In making the findings of fact in this Recommended Order and in making the specific rulings on the proposed findings which follow, I have given careful consideration to the testimony of all of the witnesses who presented testimony relevant to the issues in this case and have resolved the conflicts in the testimony by careful consideration of matters such as those summarized in the preceding paragraph, giving special consideration to each witness' opportunity to observe the property, the timing of his or her observation, the ability of the witness to perceive and understand what was being observed, and the ability of the witness to remember and recount what had been observed. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony I have also taken into consideration such matters as the extent to which the testimony was or was not consistent with other evidence, the extent to which it was or was not consistent with logic and common sense, and the extent to which the witness' interest (or lack of interest) might have colored his or her ability to objectively observe and recount the observation. Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings Paragraphs 1,2, and 3: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last sentence of Paragraph 3, which sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as constituting unnecessary, subordinate detail. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant or as constituting unnecessary, subordinate detail. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with most of the details deleted as unnecessary and subordinate. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance, for the most part, but with many unnecessary and subordinate details deleted. The sentence beginning on the ninth line of page 5 and the last sentence of this paragraph are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8: This paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. (While the witness Rector's current status as a private consultant to one of the parties is an underlying consideration in evaluating the credit to be given to his testimony [and has been considered in that regard), such status is nevertheless subordinate to the real issues in this case. The witness' education, experience, and demeanor while on the witness stand were also carefully considered, but if all of these matters were to become the subjects of findings of fact, the fact-finding process might never end and the significant facts might become forever lost in a morass of trivia.) Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance, but with many details deleted as unnecessary and subordinate. Paragraph 10: The first two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting unnecessary and subordinate details as well as being more in the nature of a summary of fragments of the testimony than a proposed finding of fact. Relevant findings about the "pond" are included in this Recommended Order. Paragraph 11: This paragraph is rejected as constituting a commentary upon a portion of the evidence or as constituting argument about the probative value of an item of evidence, rather than being a proposed finding of fact. To the extent this paragraph does contain material which could be regarded as proposed findings, they are subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance, but with many details deleted as unnecessary and subordinate. Unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant and as constituting subordinate unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance, but with many details deleted as unnecessary and subordinate. Unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting irrelevant, subordinate, unnecessary details about the hearing. Unnumbered paragraph immediately following Paragraph 14: The first two sentences of this paragraph and the last sentence of this paragraph are rejected as constituting irrelevant, subordinate, unnecessary details. Most of the remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance with most details deleted as unnecessary and subordinate. Paragraph 15: Rejected as argument or editorial commentary rather than proposed findings of fact. First unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 15: This paragraph is rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary details. Second unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 15: The first sentence is rejected as constituting subordinate, unnecessary detail. The opinion incorporated into the second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The third sentence is rejected as irrelevant in light of other credible evidence that the area had not been significantly disturbed at the time of the jurisdictional determination. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant in light of other credible evidence regarding conditions at the time of the jurisdictional determination. Third unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 15: This paragraph is rejected as irrelevant in light of other credible evidence regarding conditions at the time of the jurisdictional determination. Fourth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 15: This paragraph is rejected in part as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 16: The first two sentences of this paragraph are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary details. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance, but with the deletion of many unnecessary details. Paragraph 17: The first seven sentences of this paragraph are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. The eighth sentence is rejected as constituting an opinion which is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the witness' testimony relative to this opinion comes closer to being in the nature of "maybe" than being in the nature of, "probably." The ninth, tenth, and eleventh sentences are rejected because they constitute irrelevant subordinate details and because the testimony in this regard was not convincing to the extent it conflicts with the testimony of other witnesses. The last three sentences of this paragraph are rejected as being totally irrelevant to any issue in this case. Unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 17: This paragraph is rejected in part because it consists largely of irrelevant or subordinate and unnecessary details, in part because the testimony upon which it is based was not persuasive, and finally, because much of it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18: The paragraph is rejected as irrelevant and also as in part contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 19: This paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second and third sentences are rejected as irrelevant or subordinate detail. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected as irrelevant due to the time of the observations and in part not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: This paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22: All but the penultimate sentence of this paragraph is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate details. The essence of the penultimate sentence has been included in the findings regarding the "pond." Paragraph 23: This paragraph is rejected. For the most part it consists of irrelevant or subordinate details. To the extent it is consistent with other testimony, it is cumulative. To the extent it is inconsistent with other testimony, it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to a large extent not supported by competent substantial evidence. (It is worthy of note that much of the testimony to which this paragraph relates was substantially discredited on cross-examination.) Paragraph 24: This paragraph is rejected, primarily because it consists of irrelevant or subordinate details, but also because some of those details are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 25: This paragraph (including all of its subparts) is rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: This paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27: This paragraph is rejected. Many portions of the paragraph consist of irrelevant or subordinate details. The portions containing opinions are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not being wholly supported by competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings With the exceptions specifically noted below, the substance of all of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 7: These paragraphs are rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 6: The portion reading, ". . . except for a more landward relocation around the area identified as 'Gator Cove,' to include more area," is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 8: The portion reading, ". . . except in the area described as Gator Cove," is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Intervenor's Proposed Findings Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details deleted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with the exception second sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence is rejected as being too narrow and incomplete a statement. The findings in this Recommended Order contain more complete findings regarding the "pond." Paragraph 4: This paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted with the exception of the last sentence of this paragraph, which is rejected as irrelevant or as constituting unnecessary subordinate detail. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Paragraph 14: Accepted. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details deleted. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting primarily subordinate and unnecessary details. this regard it should be noted that Mr. Tyler's opinion that a portion of the jurisdictional line is misplaced has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.) Paragraph 19: First sentence is accepted. The remainder, although essentially accurate, is rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey Hill should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs, and should undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a community water system and its associated piping, designated PWS No. 2124409, located on parcel ID No. 03-4S-17-07486-001 on Country Club Road, in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida (“the property”). Respondent is a “person” as defined in section 403.852(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a “supplier of water” as defined in section 403.852(8). The water system is a “public water system” and a “community water system” as defined in sections 403.852(2) and (3), respectively. The community water system is a Category V, Class D water system with a capacity of 28,800 gallons per day that supplies between 25 and 3,300 people, using groundwater as its source. Count I Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for nitrate and nitrite in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count II Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for primary inorganic contaminants for the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count III Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to analyze for secondary contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IV Count IV of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for volatile organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count V Count V of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for synthetic organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VI Count VI of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for total coliform from June 2013 to date, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VII Count VII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to employ an operator for the system since May 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VIII Count VIII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to submit test results required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, and failure to file a monthly operation report since April 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IX Count IX of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to issue Tier 3 notices in May 2013 and March 2014, advising customers of the failure to monitor for certain contaminants, which Respondent admitted. Count X Count X of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to provide a consumer confidence report to his customers in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count XI In Count XI of the NOV, the Department states that it incurred $530 in investigative costs related to this enforcement matter, which is admitted by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Applicant filed a request with the Department for a permit to construct a marina in a manmade basin (Captain's Cove) located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The permit sought by the Applicant, as modified, would allow it to construct a 52-slip docking facility consisting of two 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve associated mooring piles; and, approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revertment requiring the disposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of mean high water (MHW). All docks and finger piers would be constructed of prestressed concrete supported by concrete piles; mooring piles would be pressure treated wood. The Applicant proposes to organize the facility as a condominium development; however, live-aboard use will be prohibited. A manager's quarters, office, restrooms and a parking area will be provided on the adjacent uplands. The Department's October 3, 1985, notice of intent to issue, proposed to issue the requested permit subject to the following condition: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activ- ity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received 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." If such work is done without consent, a fine for each offense in an amount of up to $10,000 may be imposed. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equip- ment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. 1O. The Marathon Department of Environmen- tal Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers: these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vege- tated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Mara- thon DER office shall meet to discuss accept- able locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applic- able State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. The Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by the Department. The Marina Site Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper than the controlling depth at the mouth. Captain's Cove is roughly rectangular in shape. It measures 1,400' northeast to southwest, and up to 500' northwest to southeast. In the vicinity of the Applicant's property, which is located in the northeast fifth of the cove, the cove measures 350' wide. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habitat for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevelant. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the basin sediments caused by installation of the facility's pilings. This can be adequately controlled, however, by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. Since the boat slips will be located in the deeper 20' MLW depth of the basin, where seagrasses are not present, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive areas of the basin lying at 5' - 6' MLW and no adverse impact from shading will be experienced. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage to the seagrass beds in the northwest portion of the basin will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of buoys and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the marina and access channel as an "idle speed-no wake" zone.[footnote 1] [footnote 1: Intervenors raised some concern regarding possible impact to the Florida manatee. While manatee have been sighted in the access channel, their occurrence is infrequent. Marking the shallow areas and designating the area as an "idle speed-no wake" zone will provide reasonable assurances that the manatee will not be adversely affected by the proposed marina.] The fueling of boats, hull maintenance, boat cleaning (detergents), and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling facilities and no live-aboards will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the conditions established by the Department, the following conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times.[footnote 2] [footnote 2: During hearing some concern was raised regarding the definition of live- aboard. The Department's intent in specifying no live-aboards was that no person(s) stay overnight on any boat moored at the marina. The purpose of this condition is to clarify that intent.] No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Limiting use of the boat slips to owners will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permit will be complied with. Prohibiting live- aboards, the pumping of sewage, fish cleaning, boat cleaning and hull maintenance, will provide reasonable assurances that Department standards for bacteriological and water quality will not be violated.
Findings Of Fact The Applications. Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road Site). The County's application for Permit DC51-189086 was filed on 11/13/90. It sought to construct Moon Lake Road WWTP, Sprayfield, and Percolation Pond System. The design treatment capacity sought for Moon Lake Road WWTP was .800 MGD, for the sprayfield was .215 MGD, and for the percolation pond system was .185 MGD. The application for Permit DC51-189086 was denied on 2/13/92. Notice of the proposed agency action was published in accordance with Department requirements, and the County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. On 11/16/93, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to exclude the proposed Moon Lake Road WWTP, in order to defer construction of the WWTP to a later date. On 1/5/94, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to withdraw the request for a surface water permit and a stormwater permit. Due to the recent interagency agreement between the Department and SWFWMD, the County decided to defer surface water and stormwater permitting for this facility until after the construction permit was issued. Permit DO51-194674 (Wesley Chapel WWTP/Oakley Grove Site). The County's application for Permit DO51-194674 was timely filed on 2/12/91. The application sought authorization to operate the County's Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at .750 MGD and Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System at .600 MGD. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was denied by the Department on 7/18/91. The notice of permit denial alleges that the County failed to submit requested additional information, that an inspection of the site had revealed a 6-inch irrigation pipe undermining a percolation pond berm, and that the Certificate of Completion of Construction did not accurately reflect observed aspects of the disposal area. The County timely petitioned for administrative hearing. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was amended on 11/16/93 to limit the treatment capacity of Wesley Chapel WWTP to .600 MGD. Permit DO51-199516 (Ryals Road Site). The portion of this case concerning Permit DO51-199516 involves the County's request to reactivate operations at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The requested disposal capacity is .1075 MGD, which is about half of its disposal capacity when it previously was in operation. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is a reuse facility owned by the County, and constructed in 1985 as a replacement for nearby Oaks Royal Percolation Pond, where a sinkhole had developed. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-100407) for the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1985. The Department granted the application for Permit DC51-100407 on 7/10/85. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System's permitted disposal rate was about .200 MGD. Construction of Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was completed in 1986, and operation began immediately thereafter due to the appearance of a new sinkhole at the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond. The Department was advised of the new sinkhole in the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond in 1/86 and in 2/86 and was advised that reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP was being diverted to Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operated from 1986 through 1989. It received reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP. A sinkhole developed in Ryals Road Percolation Pond System in 1987. The County backfilled the sinkhole and advised the Department of the problem. The County's initial operation permit application (#DO51-142683) for Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DO51-142683 in 8/89. It does not contain any permit conditions dealing with the potential for sinkhole formation at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. At the time, the Department anticipated that the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System would be in operation for only a year or two. The County operated Ryals Road Percolation Pond System under Permit DO51-142683 until sometime in 1990, without further sinkhole or land subsidence problems. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was taken out of service in 1990, when Oaks Royal WWTP was abandoned. Oaks Royal WWTP was taken out of service because, after completion of Southeast WWTP, it no longer was needed. On a routine monitor well sampling report to the Department dated April 30, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that the Oaks Royal WWTP had been taken out of service prior to January, 1990. On a subsequent report dated May 29, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that monitor wells at the Ryals Road site had been destroyed and that no ground water samples could be taken or reported. This report also noted that no arrangements were being made to replace the monitor wells since the Oaks Royal WWTP was "no longer on-line." The County never formally withdrew or surrendered its operation permit DO51-142683 for the operation of the Oaks Royal WWTP and Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Department never took action to revoke or terminate the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit and never gave the County notice of intent to do so. The County first notified the Department of its intent to "revive" the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System through letters dated 4/12/91 and 4/18/91. The County attempted to reactivate the facility by letter rather than permit application because it believed the facility was already authorized to operate pursuant to Permit DO51-142683. After receiving no response to its 4/91 letters, the County sent the Department a follow-up letter dated 6/10/91 again asking to "revive" Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. This letter refers to the County's request to reactivate the system as a "minor modification" to Permit DC51-150232C, which authorized construction activities at the County's Southeast WWTP. The letter sought a minor modification of the construction permit instead of an amendment to Permit DO51-142683 because the County was unsure of the status of the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operation permit and had been advised by Department employees that this would be the most expeditious way to handle its request. The County's request for a minor modification was assigned permit identification number DO51-199516, and the "O" signifies an operation permit application. The County does not know why its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was treated by the Department as a new operation permit application. The County first learned that its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System had been assigned a new operation permit identification number when it received notice of permit denial. The "application" for Permit DO51-199516 was denied on 8/26/91. The County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial for Permit DO51-199516 alleged that Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is not suitable for rapid rate disposal due to the high potential for subsidence activity, that this potential is demonstrated by the appearance of sinkholes in 1985, 1986 and 1987, and that boring logs and other information in the ground water monitoring plan shows a potential for sinkhole formation. Regardless of the confusion in processing the County's request regarding the Ryals Road site, the County announced clearly and unequivocally at final hearing that it no longer wanted its request to reactivate the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP). Rather, it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a), and it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit). Alternatively, and only if it was determined that Permit DO51-142683 no longer was in effect, the County wanted its request to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP) or as an application for a new operation permit. Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit) expired on August 5, 1994. Drainage Ditches in Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Percolation Pond Systems. Drainage ditches are present at the Oakley Grove and several other County Percolation Pond Systems; they are proposed for the Moon Lake Percolation Pond System. (Drainage ditches are not present at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System.) A "relief drainage" system is a system of drainage ditches used to lower a high water table, which is generally flat or of a very low gradient. There are 4 types of relief drainage ditch systems: parallel, herringbone, double main and random. Correspondence between the County's consultants and the Department usually described the on-site drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond systems as "perimeter ditches." Although the County's ditches do not necessarily completely surround each pond, it is a fair description of the ditches. They are a network of ditches that, together, surround the sites. The network varies to some degree from site to site. Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System is designed to have double main type drainage ditch system; Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System has a random type ditch system. The County's consultants began referring to the ditches as "perimeter ditches" in part because it was a term used by members of the Department's staff. But both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Ground water will seep into the relief drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond system. During and after any rainfall event, water infiltrating into the ground in close proximity to a drainage ditch will be encouraged to seep into the ditch. During seasonally wet periods, when ground water elevations tend to rise above normal levels, ground water both on and off- site will seep into the ditches. After extreme rainfall events delivering large volumes of water to the site, elevated ground water mounding would occur and ground water will seep into the drainage ditches. The invert elevations of the relief drainage ditches located at the County's percolation pond systems were set to the approximate normal water level elevation. As a result, the ditch inverts will normally be wet, and ground water normally will seep into ditches in normal weather conditions even if the water table is not being recharged by reclaimed water. The principal design goals for the drainage features located at the County's percolation pond systems are: (a) ditch construction provides an inexpensive source of fill material; (b) using on-site ditch material allows pond bottoms to be kept higher above the water table; (c) ditches buffer adjacent property from recharge impacts; (d) ditches buffer the site from adjacent land use practices; (e) ditches provide a constant boundary condition by flattening seasonal fluctuation in rainfall, runoff, water table elevations and the potentiometric surface of the deeper aquifer system; (f) ditches serve to quickly drain rainfall that may hinder the recharge performance of the percolation ponds; (g) ditches provide a visible indication of site performance; and (h) ditches are part of the site's stormwater and overflow system. Although the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches is not the primary goal of these drainage features, it is recognized that some reclaimed water would be collected in the ditches as a result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds, depending on the application rate and weather conditions. It is possible that reclaimed water applied to the percolation ponds will percolate into the ground and combine with native ground water, and that the resulting mixture will infiltrate the drainage ditches. As with all land application systems, water applied to percolation ponds will migrate downgradient in the surficial aquifer system and blend with other waters recharging this system. Surface waters downgradient from percolation pond cells, whether in the relief drainage ditches or off-site, will receive a blend of rainwater, direct runoff, water originating from the percolation ponds and ground water, in various proportions. Most surface water is designed to leave the Oakley Grove site at the eastern discharge point. Surface water leaving the site at this point flows east under Interstate 75 and into a forested wetland, approximately 150 acres in size, located to the east of I-75. Surface water then flows from the southwest corner of the wetland into a linear wetland and channel system, which conveys water west, ultimately discharging into Big Cypress Swamp, another wetland system several thousand acres in size. The other discharge point is from the southwestern corner of the Oakley Grove site. From the southwest outfall, surface water flows into a wetland and channel system that conveys water west and then north into Big Cypress Swamp. Surface water also is designed to discharge from the Moon Lake Road site via two outfalls. Both are located on the east side of the site. Discharges would enter an adjacent cypress wetland system consisting of hundreds of acres and meander approximately two miles in a northeasterly direction to a point of intersection with the upper reaches of the Pithlachascotee River. Status of Reclaimed Water Travelling 100 Feet or More from Percolation Pond Cells to Drainage Ditches. The Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water. This practice is derived from Department rules and from the Department's expectation that effluent percolating into the ground water and travelling 100 feet through the soil no longer will have the characteristics of effluent, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. One hundred feet generally is recognized in the engineering field as usually sufficient area to permit adequate treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent as it travels through the soil matrix so to be virtually indistinguishable from normally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. The treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent occurs through a variety of chemical, biological, absorptive and physical processes that are well documented in the field of sanitary engineering. Although the Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water, the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet of travel through the ground makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to be virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. This is reflected in the fact that Department's rules make 100 feet the minimum setback distance. In contrast to diffuse discharges to nearby surface water bodies, the Department's rules treat discharges to surface waters via a ditch system that collects and concentrates reclaimed water differently. By rule, such discharges require a surface water discharge permit. If reclaimed water travels through the ground far enough before infiltrating drainage ditches, it would be treated and diluted to the point that it is in fact indistinguishable in chemical or biological composition from native ground water and no longer should be considered reclaimed water or effluent. How far is the dispositive question in determining whether a surface water discharge permit will be required. Setback Distance from On-Site Ditches to Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Sites. Relief drainage ditches at Moon Lake Percolation Pond System are designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the pond to the ditch invert. Relief drainage ditches at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System also were designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the percolation pond to the ditch invert. However, primarily as a result of changes to the drainage system required by SWFWMD as part of its permitting process, and minor siting imperfections which occurred during construction, parts of the drainage ditch system at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System are located closer than 100 feet from the percolation ponds. To locate all Oakley Grove drainage ditches 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, it will be necessary to reduce the size of the ponds. In the new configuration, the design loading rate would have to be increased to .8 from .58 gpd/ft2 (gallons per day per square foot) of pond bottom in order to maintain the .600 MGD design loading capacity of the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System. Even assuming the predicted hydraulic capacity of Oakley Grove site, the actual disposal capacity for the site cannot be determined until it is determined how much of a reduction in pond size is required. The County has not made those determinations yet. Seepage of Reclaimed Water from Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System to Drainage Ditches. Although constructed with a design disposal capacity of .600 MGD, until recently the County has loaded the ponds at Oakley Grove under the Oakley Grove construction permit at an actual average rate of approximately .200 MGD. (Maximum actual loading has been approximately .250 to .270 MGD.) This average loading rate required effluent to be loaded onto the ponds at the rate of approximately .19 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. In November, 1993, the County stopped loading the ponds at Oakley Grove. During site visits to Oakley Grove on 4/15/91, 7/11/91, 7/12/91, 8/27/91, 10/12/93 and 12/7/93, Department personnel observed that ditch inverts, and some points even higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts, were wet and that water had collected in some the ditches, while other ditches and surface water outfalls were not wet. The wet ditches and berms seemed to correspond with the loading of ponds. Rainfall at the Oakley Grove site during the 10-day period immediately preceding these Department site visits was as follows: Site Visit Inches of rainfall Gallons of rainfall 4/15/91 3.58 9,786,659 7/11/91 5.41 14,789,337 7/12/91 5.60 15,308,742 8/27/91 2.91 7,955,078 10/12/93 1.02 2,788,378 12/7/93 0.03 82,011 The precise source of all of the water saturating the wet berms and ditch bottoms observed by the Department personnel was not clear from the evidence. Some of the wet berms and ditch bottoms probably were the result of rainfall that collected in portions of the ditch system due to uneven grading during construction, modifications to the ditch system required by SWFWMD, and the County's maintenance practices. But the evidence also suggests that seepage was occurring from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, in some cases at points higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. It also was not clear from the evidence whether the apparent seepage from the percolation ponds into the drainage ditches was occurring more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of the percolation ponds. If less, the seepage may be an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by computer flow models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. Oakley Grove was designed to recharge the surficial aquifer without short-circuiting the designed 100 foot setback from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, even at the design disposal capacity of .600 MGD. (Cady Prefiled, 175). The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as designed. Based on the assumed hydraulic capacity of the site, water balances prepared by the County assert that none of the water in the ditches would come from the percolation ponds at .200 MGD, or even at .300 MGD. The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. The Oakley Grove relief drainage ditches were authorized by a SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") Permit (i.e., Permit #405124, issued 7/12/89). This permit established two surface water quality monitoring sites for the off-site discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches and requires that any water discharged off-site meet surface water quality standards. The County has collected data from these monitoring sites since 1991. This data does not indicate any violations of surface water quality standards due to the discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches to off- site receiving waters. (SWFWMD has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action against the County as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to receiving waters, and Permit #405124 remains active.) However, the data indicate that the surface water quality has been worse, with respect to several parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for NOx-N, as high as .600 MGD.) This may be another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. MGD. No load testing was done at Oakley Grove at more than .250 to .270 Even at the historical loading rate, the evidence did not reflect that the County undertook to determine whether, under different weather conditions, reclaimed water was coming to the surface either in the drainage ditches or higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. Nor was there evidence that systematic testing of the water quality in the ditches was conducted. In light of the evidence of seepage into ditches, either more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of ponds, it was not proven that the site has the capacity to accept effluent at the design rate of .8 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. It was, however, proven by evidence introduced as Department Exhibit 32 that .075 MGD is a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on- site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions. Alleged Settlement Offer. Department Exhibit 32 is a January 27, 1992, letter from the County to the Department. It enclosed a letter to the County from the County's engineering consultant and an engineering report from a new hydrogeologic consultant to the County. The January 27, 1992, letter referenced a December 16, 1991, meeting "concerning acceptable rated disposal capacity" for the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System and states that the enclosed hydrogeology report "verifies the rated capacity [for Oakley Grove] at 75,000 gpd." (The report stated that its purpose was "to estimate a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on-site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions.") It concluded that a hydraulic loading of the Wesley Chapel WWTP can be justified by combining the 75,000 gpd disposal capacity for Oakley Grove with the 100,000 gpd already permitted for the Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System. Nowhere is Department Ex. 32 in fact identified as a settlement offer or as having any connection to a settlement offer in this or any other case. It is found that Dept. Ex. 32 was part of the process by which the parties successfully negotiated the settlement of the County's permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP, Permit Application No. DC51-205143. The Department issued a permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP (with a .075 MGD limit on disposal at Oakley Grove) on August 31, 1992. The County acceded to reduction of the actual disposal capacity at Oakley Grove pending the disposition of its application for an operation permit for Oakley Grove, and construction of the modifications was completed in late 1993. Ground Water Quality at Oakley Grove. During the time that Oakley Groves has been in operation, monitor wells have detected no violations of G-II ground water quality standards except for nitrates. Analysis of initial ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System in approximately January, 1991, detected no nitrate violations. The first quarterly reports after the County started loading the ponds began showing exceedances for nitrates. Exceedances continued to be reported in every quarter until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System demonstrates that nitrate concentrations have gone down over time. On average for the entire Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, including upgradient background monitoring wells, nitrate concentrations have remained below the 10 mg/l Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate from approximately August, 1992, until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. The most recent quarterly sampling of the monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System occurred in 11/93. The report was submitted to the Department in 1/94. It showed no exceedances of the Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate in any of the monitor wells. However, it is not clear from the evidence whether the reports reflected the effects of reclaimed water being applied to the site. The reclaimed water applied to Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System probably is not the sole reason for the elevated nitrate concentrations that have been reported. Agricultural fertilizer was used at the site prior to acquisition by the County. Nitrates from the fertilizer have remained in the soil matrix. The loading of the ponds began to liberate the nitrates from the soil matrix and to flush the nitrates downgradient to the monitor wells. As the preexisting nitrates have been flushed out, nitrate levels have dropped. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System suggests that operation of the facility at historical loading rates (approximately .200 MGD) probably will not result in continued ground water quality violations. Systematic load testing would help answer the question more definitively. Surface Water Quality Considerations. The County did not intend for its percolation pond disposal systems either at Oakley Groves or at Moon Lake Road to result in a surface water discharge that would require a surface water discharge permit, and it has not applied for one at either site. Not having applied for a surface water discharge permit, the County has not submitted either a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL) study or a plan to do a WQBEL study. In lieu of a WQBEL study, the County presented evidence of surface water quality consisting primarily of an evaluation of estimated predicted contributions, concentrations and characteristics of inputs entering the drainage ditches and a prediction of water quality characteristics at the point of discharge, given various application rates. Procedures commonly used and relied upon by water resource and sanitary engineers can be used to estimate the predicted quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates. The County utilized these procedures to predict, first, expected quality of water in the drainage ditches and, second, quality of water expected to be discharged off-site under various reclaimed water application rates. In applying the procedures, the County used lower removal efficiencies than those allowed in the EPA Design Manual and did not take into account additional pollutant removal efficiencies that will occur as the water in the ditches migrates off-site, resulting in higher predicted levels of contaminants in the water discharged off-site. The County also assumed the accuracy of the studies and models supporting the disposal capacities for the sites. Utilizing these procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated the following predictions for Oakley Grove: --At an application rate of .300 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N (ammonia) = 0.129 mg/l; NOx- N (nitrite-nitrate)= 0.141 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.177 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.477 mg/l; CBOD5 (carbonaceous biological oxygen demand)= 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.04 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 21 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .400 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.199 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.233 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.192 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.672 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.056 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 20 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .500 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.549 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.695 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.268 mg/l; total nitrogen = 1.65 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.25 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 15 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .600 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.759 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.975 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.314 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.23 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.36 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 12 per 100 ml. --At all reclaimed water application rates at the Oakley Grove site, it was estimated that TSS (total suspended solids) in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Utilizing the same procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Moon Lake Road site at the design application rate of .185 MGD would be: NH3-N = 0.769 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.995 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.297 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.25 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.37 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 3 per 100 ml. At the reclaimed water application rate proposed for Moon Lake Percolation Pond System, the County estimated that TSS in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Using those predictions of the water quality characteristics of off- site discharges from the relief drainage ditches, the County presented evidence that predicted generally and in a conclusory fashion that surface water discharges would not adversely impact the environment downstream. However, as already indicated, water quality monitoring for SWFWMD indicates water quality that has been worse at historical application rates, with respect to some parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for one parameter, as high as .600 MGD). County Ex. 162 summarized the surface water monitoring results at Oakley Grove for November, 1992, through November, 1993: East Outfall at I-75: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.721 mg/l, and mean 0.157 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-3.04 mg/l, and mean 0.416 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.250-1.10 mg/l, and mean 0.558 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.510- 3.77 mg/l, and mean 1.31 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-2.0, and mean 1.1 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.020-0.190 mg/l, and mean 0.054 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.1 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 1-5300 per 100 ml, and mean 352 per 100 ml. South Outfall at Trailer Park: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.270 mg/l, and mean 0.125 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-0.810 mg/l, and mean 0.285 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.285-1.01 mg/l, and mean 0.631 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.533-1.85 mg/l, and mean 1.04 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-3.0, and mean 1.4 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.010-0.120 mg/l, and mean 0.053 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.9 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 2-560 per 100 ml, and mean 50 per 100 ml. In addition, contrary to the County's predictions, estimates and arguments that surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site will be "virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water," the surface water quality monitoring for SWFWMD at historical application rates indicates that water quality has been clearly distinguishable from naturally occurring ground water. The surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site clearly have had higher levels of NOx-N and organic nitrogen than the water quality measured at the background monitoring station. In addition, pH levels have been significantly higher (approximately 7.35 versus 5.81). As previously found, the evidence suggests that seepage from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches has occurred at the Oakley Grove site at application rates of approximately .200 MGD. That evidence belies the assumptions underlying the County's surface water quality predictions at Oakley Grove and suggests that the site may not have the hydraulic and disposal capacities on which the surface water quality predictions for Oakley Grove were based. Until the actual hydraulic capacity and disposal capacity of the Oakley Grove site are determined, it is not possible to accurately predict the quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates (except that there was evidence to prove that no seepage into the ditches would occur at application rates of up to .075 MGD.) In contrast to the Oakley Grove site, no load testing of the Moon Lake Road site is possible until it is constructed. The County presented evidence that nitrogen would be absorbed by plants and sediments downstream from the point of discharge. However, the evidence assumed that discharges would take place only in the wet season. Potential downstream impacts resulting from a dry season discharge would depend upon: (1) the amount of water coming off the site; (2) the amount of water in the receiving wetlands; (3) the duration of the discharge; and (4) the frequency of the discharge. The County's evidence did not examine the impact of discharges under those conditions. The County did not present evidence quantifying the amount of anticipated inorganic nitrogen discharge, the rate of uptake in sediments or plants, and the impacts downstream. The potential for imbalance of flora and fauna downstream, the biological integrity downstream, and degradation downstream likewise were addressed only in a general and conclusory fashion. No in-depth study of downstream biology was completed by the County. As for pH, there was evidence that the background wetland had a pH of 5.81 in standard units, while the ditch discharge has had a pH of 7.35 in standard units. Standard units of pH are logarithmic values. The numbers are actually powers of 10 and cannot simply be added together and divided by 2 to get an average pH. To get an average pH, you have to convert the pH from the logarithmic value to the actual concentration of the hydrogen ion, take the average, and then convert the average to a logarithmic value. Using this method, the average of a pH of 5.81 standard units and a pH of 7.35 standard units equals 6.1 standard units. Wetlands are very sensitive to the decreases in acidity reflected by higher pH values. The County's predicted surface water quality analyses did not address pH at all. The County's evidence did not include an examination of existing downstream conditions and projecting potential discharge impacts. The County did not model dissolved oxygen downstream of discharge points and did not survey the biological community of the receiving waters regarding any discharge to determine what impact, if any, a potential discharge would have on waters of the state. Surface water quality considerations were not assessed in relation to the volume and frequency of the discharge. In addition, the County did not sample and analyze water quality in downstream receiving waters. Other Considerations at Moon Lake Road In evaluating the County's Moon Lake Road application for completeness, the Department requested that the County conduct a fracture trace analysis and, if it indicated a higher likelihood of subsidence or sinkholes, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) study. The County refused to do either, citing a desire to save County taxpayers money. Karst geology is typical in Pasco County. The County's site specific study of the Moon Lake Road site indicates the potential for karst activity by the presence of depressional features within and immediately adjacent to the site. It also indicates the presence of sinkholes on an immediately adjacent property. Starkey Wellfield is a regional public water supply wellfield located in Pasco County, which is part of the water supply network operated by West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority ("WCRWSA"). Starkey Wellfield currently operates under a consumptive use permit ("CUP") issued in 1988. The CUP authorizes the production of water from this facility at the annual average rate of 15 MGD and the maximum rate of 25 MGD. The nearest production well at the Starkey Wellfield is located slightly over half a mile from Moon Lake Road Sprayfield and slightly less than three-quarters of a mile from the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System. Water levels at the Moon Lake Road site probably will decline only about 0.7 foot due to the production of water from Starkey Wellfield. This decline is too small to significantly increase the potential for sinkhole formation or subsidence at the Moon Lake Road site. If the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System and Sprayfield can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner, it might be able to provide valuable recharge to the water table and the lower lying aquifer units. (This could reduce impacts caused by the wellfield.) But if there already is a sinkhole, or the high potential for one, at the Moon Lake site, use of the site for the disposal of reclaimed water could have a serious adverse effect on the Starkey Wellfield public water supply. Under these circumstances, it is found that the County has not yet given reasonable assurances that the Moon Lake Road site can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Evidence on Elements of Estoppel. The "Representations." Prior to the filing of the pending Oakley Grove operation permit application and Moon Lake Road construction permit projects, the Department had evaluated and permitted other similar County percolation pond systems (utilizing a system of drainage ditches to improve performance during wet weather conditions) in other locations. Saddlebrook Village Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has a design disposal capacity of .15 MGD and a permitted capacity of .098 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-140007) for this facility was filed in 9/87. The Department issued Permit DC51-140007 on 12/21/87. Specific Conditions 7 and 8 of Permit DC51-140007 address the relief drainage ditch system. These conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for primary drinking water standards, flow, dissolved oxygen ("DO"), pH, biological oxygen demand ("CBOD5") and total suspended solids ("TSS"). The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51- 140007. Thereafter, the County applied for a construction permit (#DC51-145550) in 2/88 to expand the system's disposal capacity to .250 MGD. The application sought to construct additional percolation pond basins and extend the ditch system to the new pond area. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 145550 on 7/26/88. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the modified facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 address the drainage ditch system. These conditions limit flow out of the drainage ditches to the rainy season and then only when the perimeter ditch flow does not exceed the upstream flow of the receiving water. The conditions also establish maximum effluent limits of 5 mg/l for CBOD5 and TSS, 3 mg/l for total nitrogen, 1 mg/l for total phosphorus and non-detectable for fecal coliform. Finally, the conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for flow, primary and secondary drinking water standards, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, fecal coliform, pH, CBOD5, and TSS. The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has operated pursuant to Permit DC51-145550, as needed through the final hearing. The surface water quality information required pursuant to Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 has been presented to the Department. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permits DC51-140007 and DC51-14550. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action due to discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was never upgraded to the .250 MGD capacity authorized by Permit DC51-14450. The County never applied for an operation permit covering this facility because the evolution of its wastewater system and changes in land use patterns resulted in the development of other disposal sites. Shady Hills Shady Hills Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design disposal capacity is .650 MGD, and its permitted capacity is .400 MGD. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-160307) for Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was filed in 1/89 or 2/89. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 160307 on 6/7/89. Permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 5/18/89 finding the County provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated according to applicable rules and standards. Initially, Permit DC51-160307 did not contain special conditions addressing the presence of drainage ditches. However, it was amended on 7/24/89, and the amended permit was assigned identification number DC51-160307A. Specific Conditions 3 and 4 of Permit DC51-160307A address the drainage ditch system and require that the drainage ditch system must be maintained to preclude off-site discharge of pollutants and that any water discharged off-site must meet state water quality standards. Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51-160307A, and has operated from late 1990 to present. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permit DC51-160307A. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. The County never applied for an operation permit covering Shady Hills Percolation Pond System because the associated WWTP is being expanded and the County decided to wait until the expansion program is completed to obtain the operation permit. Lake Padgett Lake Padgett (a/k/a, Land O'Lakes) Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design and permitted disposal capacity is 1.0 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-159899) for the facility was filed in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159899 on 5/16/89. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 4/27/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Condition 15 of Permit DC51-159899 addresses the drainage ditches. It requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to receiving waters must comply with Section 403.086, Florida Statutes (Grizzle- Figg standards). The Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System was constructed and operated pursuant to Permit DC51-159899. The County obtained an operation permit (#DO51- 205681) for the system on 3/26/92. Specific Condition 20 of the operation permit addresses the relief drainage ditch system, and requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to the receiving waters comply with Section 403.086. The facility has operated pursuant to Permit DO51-205681 since 3/26/92 to present. Off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System have not resulted in violations of Permit DC51- 159899 or Permit DC205681. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Construction of Oakley Grove The County conducted a site specific hydrogeologic and soil survey and effluent disposal study for the Oakley Grove site in late 1988. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-159755) for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1/89. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159755 on 6/22/89. The design and permitted disposal capacity for Oakley Grove is .600 MGD. The Oakley Grove permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 6/2/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurance that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Permit DC51-159755 does not contain any special conditions addressing the drainage ditches. One reason for this is that the surface water management permit issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") for this site contains conditions requiring the County to monitor any off-site discharges from the drainage ditches and prohibiting any violation of surface water quality standards. Consequently, there was no need for the Department to impose a similar permit condition. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was constructed under Permit DC51-159755. It was completed in 4/91 and has operated under that permit until approximately November, 1993. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System's actual disposal rate during the period of operation has been about .200 MGD. The "Detrimental Reliance." The County paid $1,200,000 to acquire the Oakley Grove site. The County declined to purchase other potential sites that also would have cost about $1,200,000 in 1988, but would have cost about $1,800,000 in 1993. Total costs for property acquisition, engineering and construction at Oakley Grove have been approximately $2,800,000. In addition, the Shady Hills, Lake Padgett, and Handcart Road Percolation Pond Systems were constructed or modified at a cost of about $2,600,000 after issuance of the construction permit for the Oakley Grove project. To the extent that the County is unable to use the .600 MGD design disposal capacity at Oakley Grove, and cannot replace the deficit, the County will have insufficient disposal capacity. It would cost the County over $500,000 to modify the Oakley Grove site so that it could make some other practicable use of the property, and it would take about 18 months and about $2,800,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility. During the time it would take to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. The County began planning a percolation pond system for the Moon Lake Road site in 1988, and paid $600,000 to acquire the site. The County does not own any of the potential effluent disposal sites that it passed over when acquiring the Moon Lake Road site. It would have cost about $660,000 to acquire a similar site in 1993. If the County is not permitted to construct the Moon Lake Road site, it cannot make any practicable use of that site. It would take about 18 months and about $500,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement wastewater effluent disposal facility for the Moon Lake Road site. During that time, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. Alleged Default Permit for Moon Lake Road. Upon receipt of the application for Permit DC51-189086, the Department sent the County a letter dated 12/12/90 requesting additional information. The 12/12/90 request for additional information cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County's consulting engineer responded, on behalf of the County, to the request for additional information by letter to the Department's Permitting Engineer, dated 2/28/91. The County response stated that the County disagreed with the Department's "judgment" that the County's application was incomplete. But it also stated in pertinent part: However, recognizing that responsible professionals disagree and the extent to which you are responsible for rejecting this work, we have attached appropriate information and clarifying responses to aid you in discharging your professional duty. . . . Assuming we receive authorization from our client and that you accept full professional responsibility for the decision we will consider modifying our documents accordingly. In any event we feel comfortable requesting that you consider our permit application complete. On 3/26/91, the Department requested additional information. Again, the request cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County never responded. Meanwhile, the parties began to discuss settlement. Finally, on 2/13/92, the Department issued its notice of intent to deny the application. Subject Matter Index of Agency Orders. The Department has no subject matter index of any of its orders taking action on permit applications between 1975 and 1981. After 1981, the Department has had a subject matter index of its orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. There never has been a subject matter index of Department orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has not been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. It would be impracticable, if not impossible, for the County to research such orders without a subject matter index. There is no central repository or computer database for all Department permit decisions. Some of its permitting files are located in its main Tallahassee office but many also are located in its seven district offices. Regardless of whether there is a central repository or computer database for orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings, there is no evidence that, after 1981, there have been any such orders reflecting the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. It was not proven that the County was unable, by reason of permitting files being located in both the main Tallahassee office and the various district offices, to research the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. Research at the seven district offices would have been more costly than if all files were centrally located, but there is no reason in this case to believe that the additional cost would have been prohibitive. Alleged Biased Review. David Rhodes is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed by the Department's Southwest District Office. His responsibilities mainly consist of reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. He was the Department's primary reviewer for geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of the County's applications for Permit DO51-194674 (Oakley Grove) and Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road), as well as Permit DC51-169994 (Handcart Road Percolation Pond System). He recommended denial of all three permit applications. On 2/18/91, David Rhodes contacted a County employee, Marshall Hughes, concerning the County's construction permit application for the Handcart Road Percolation Pond System and suggested "off-the-record" that the County discharge its geotechnical consultant, Richard Mortensen, and replace the proposed percolation pond system with a sprayfield. The County declined to terminate Mortensen. When Mortensen learned of David Rhodes's attempt to have the County fire him, Mortensen contacted David Rhodes's supervisor, Judith Richtar, on 3/4/91 to discuss this incident. Richtar told Mortensen that she was unaware of the matter, but would look into it and get back in touch with him. When Mortensen did not hear from Richtar for two weeks, he called her. She told him that David Rhodes had denied everything. Mortensen later learned that David Rhodes made comments and insinuations to two of his other clients disparaging his work performance and suggesting that his engineering firm was not competent. Mortensen was not satisfied with Richtar's handling of his complaint. On 4/25/94, he contacted Richtar's superior, Dr. Richard Garrity. Garrity asked for a letter detailing the incident. Mortensen wrote Garrity a letter dated 5/29/91 describing David Rhodes's communication with Hughes and requesting that Richtar be disciplined for her handling of this situation. David Rhodes was suspended by the Department without pay; however, Richtar was not disciplined. David Rhodes also wrote Mortensen a letter of apology for his communication with Marshall Hughes. The letter states his comments to Hughes should not be interpreted as a personal vendetta against Mortensen's engineering firm and that he hoped the incident could be put behind them so they could continue working on future projects. Rhodes admitted that he felt embarrassed after Garrity suspended him without pay and suggested that he write a letter of apology to Mortensen. About 3 months after David Rhodes's letter of apology, another Department employee, Joe May, filed 5 complaints with DBPR against Mortensen's P.E. license. The complaints identified the Handcart Road, Moon Lake Road, Oakley Grove, Lake Padgett and Westchase projects. (All of these are County projects, except for Westchase.) The complaints identified Richtar as a "contact person." Richtar knew about May's complaints before they were filed with DBPR and acquiesced to being identified in them as a contact person. Like David Rhodes, May is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed in the technical support section of the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa. His responsibilities include reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. However, he had no permit review involvement with respect to the Oakley Grove, Moon Lake Road, Handcart Road and Lake Padgett projects. Instead, the hydrogeological aspects of those projects were assigned to May's colleague, David Rhodes. Mortensen's attorney responded to May's 5 complaints in January, 1992. Copies of Mortensen's technical reports were attached to the response, including the site specific studies he had prepared for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road sites. DBPR referred May's complaints and Mortensen's technical reports to an independent engineering firm, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. for review. This firm prepared a report on January 21, 1993. The report exonerated Mortensen and found that May's complaints were without merit. DBPR took May's 5 complaints before a probable cause panel of the Board of Professional Engineers. The panel found there was no probable cause to pursue them. Mortensen was informed of this finding by DBPR's 8/31/93 letter. The Department has allowed David Rhodes to remain on the permit review team on the County's permit applications for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond Systems despite the fact Mortensen is the geotechnical consultant on these projects. It is not found that the continued presence of Rhodes and Richtar on the permit review team for the County's permit applications demonstrates the Department's prejudice against the County and its consultants. It is not found that the Department's decisions to deny the County's permit applications in this case were interposed for an improper purpose or that the denials were based on the permit reviewers' personal animosity against the County and its consultants, rather than on the merits of the facilities. However, relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order as follows: In Case No. 92-1604: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DC51-189086) to construct a sprayfield reuse disposal system at .215 MGD and a rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .185 MGD at Moon Lake Road, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of a fracture trace analysis, a ground penetrating radar analysis (if needed), and an appropriate WQBEL study. If the application subsequently is granted, including among the specific conditions (1) a requirement for systematic load testing and monitoring of ground and surface water quality under the construction permit, as a condition for issuance of an operation permit, and (2), if appropriate, requiring monitoring, reporting and safely repairing subsidences, collapse features and sinkholes in and around discharge points. See, e.g., Specific Condition 12, Hudson WWTP Permit DC51-130307 (County Ex. 170). Case No. 92-1653: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.600 MGD, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of: (1) additional systematic load testing, (2) systematic monitoring of ground and surface water quality, and (3) an appropriate WQBEL study. Granting the County a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.075 MGD, thereby supporting the operation of its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant to the extent of .075 MGD pending load testing, systematic monitoring and load testing and reconsideration of the application for an operation permit for more capacity, up to .600 MGD. Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant at .600 MGD and limiting its capacity to the available permitted disposal capacity. Case No. 92-1654: Denying, as moot, the County's application for a permit (application no. DO51-199516) to reactivate the operation of its Ryals Road rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .1075 MGD. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Speculative and unnecessary. 6.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 14.-30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-34. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 35.-43. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 45.-53. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 54. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation should have been done. 55.-58. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 59. Rejected as not proven. 60.-61. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 62. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation of soil permeability should have been done. 63.-76. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. ("Southwest" in 76. should be "Southeast.") 77.-79. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 80.-92. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 95.-113. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusions of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, conclusion of law. Conclusions of law. 117.-122. Accepted but generally subordinate and unnecessary. (There is no indication in this case that the Wesley Chapel WWTP cannot operate as designed, as permitted for construction, and as constructed, subject to available disposal capacity.) 123.-148. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven (Oakley Grove, without WQBEL studies, and Ryals Road without further investigation into significance of down-warping.) Otherwise, accepted: as to Ryals Road, moot, subordinate and unnecessary; as to Oakley Grove, incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies and fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, GPR. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 154.-155. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 156.-158. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 159. Rejected as not proven that the use of the label "perimeter ditches" is "not accurate" or that the County used the term only because the Department did. Rather, both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 160.-161. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 162. Accepted in the sense that the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches was not the primary goal of the drainage system. However, it was recognized that the collection of some reclaimed water in the ditches, especially under some weather conditions, was a necessary result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds. 163.-166. Accepted and incorporated. 167.-169. Rejected as not proven that the Department has "changed position" without promulgating any rule. The County's own permitting experience has shown that the Department has had concerns about the performance of percolation pond systems with perimeter drainage features. Those concerns have evolved over time. Before April, 1989, those concerns were given expression in special conditions in permits. In April, 1989, F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 were promulgated. The evidence does not prove that, before 9/15/89, the Department would not ever consider water in drainage ditches 100 feet from percolation ponds to be "reclaimed water." Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that approval or denial would be "automatic." The question was whether WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied. Rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. 173.-174. Accepted but unnecessary. (Current practice simply reflects the application of the current rules.) Rejected as not proven that the Department position had "completely changed," that the Department was "inalterably opposed to the ditches," or that the Department had before it the "reasonable assurances" provided at the other sites. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Again, rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven; also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that the Department stipulated that F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517(2) does not apply. Also, conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 186.-187. The implication that the Department does anything other than follow F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521 is rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 188.-190. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water infiltrating ditches at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road has been or will be "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water. Otherwise, generally, accepted, and 100 feet should be enough in most circumstances. But the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to no longer be considered reclaimed water. Also, the concentration of discharges via a ditch system is another factor to be considered. 191.-192. Accepted and incorporated. 193.-194. Rejected as not proven that they could be modified "easily" or without decreasing the permittable disposal capacity. Accepted (assuming they are built as designed) and incorporated. Last word should be "dry"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 198.-201. Rejected in part as being subordinate to facts not proven and contrary to those found. (Cady's testimony explained some of the wet ditch bottoms, but not all of them, and not the wet slopes of the berms.) Other parts, accepted and subordinate to facts found. 202.-206. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the approach makes certain assumptions, and the estimates or predictions will not be accurate if the assumptions are not. In the case of Oakley Grove, the assumptions concerning hydraulic capacity do not appear to have been accurate.) 207.-211. Rejected as not proven. See 202.-206., above. 212. Accepted and incorporated. 213.-219. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. But see 202.-206., above. 220.-226. Rejected as not proven as to Oakley Grove. See 202.-206., above. Accepted as to Moon Lake Road. Accepted as predictions based on the given assumptions, particularly as to hydraulic capacity of the site. 227.-230. Recitation of the experts' opinions, accepted as accurate recitations. Rejected that plant-life utilization of inorganic nitrogen allays Fricano's concerns. To the exact contrary, his concern is that plant-life will utilize the inorganic nitrogen in ways organic nitrogen would not be used, leading to undesirable environmental impacts. Also, rejected as not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters. 231.-232. Accepted and incorporated. 233.-234. Rejected as not proven. (The County expert's opinion assumed only wet weather discharges. Also, not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters.) 235.-239. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 240.-243. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 244. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 245.-248. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 249. Rejected as not proven that this can be done "easily." See 193.- 194., above. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 250.-251. Rejected as not proven. 252.-253. For both: last two sentences, rejected as not proven; the rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (F.A.C. Rule Chapter 17-600 forms did not apply.) Second and fourth sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 257.-258. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 259. Rejected as to the location of some ditches within 100 feet of the percolation ponds. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 260.-261. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 262. Rejected as not proven. 263.-269. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 270. Rejected as not proven. 271.-279. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The "change in policy" is reflected in F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522.) Accepted and incorporated. As to (b) and (c), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. As to (c), rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 287.-289. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 290. Accepted and incorporated. 291.-293. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 294.-295. Conclusions of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 299.-301. Accepted and incorporated. 302. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 303.-308. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. (The SWIM plans were not in evidence, and it is not clear whether they incorporate by reference the permitting requirements at issue in these proceedings.) 311.-312. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 316.-317. As to (g) and (h), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 318.-323. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 324. Conclusion of law. 325.-326. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 330.-331. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 332. Rejected as not proven. 333.-334. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 335. Last sentence of 335., rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted. 336.-350. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 351. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 352.-353. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 361.-362. Rejected that it was an offer to settle this case. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 363.-367. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 368.-371. Accepted and incorporated. 372.-401. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 402. Rejected as not proven. (They result from a combination of the nitrates in the reclaimed water and nitrates imbedded in the soil matrix from prior agricultural use. Also, unlike the Oakley Grove site, nitrate exceedances were observed at Wildcat Grove before application of any reclaimed water.) 403.-405. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 406. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water was being applied at the time. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 407. Rejected as not proven when nitrate exceedances will end. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 408. Rejected as not proven. See 406., above. 409. Rejected as not proven. See 407., above. 410.-416. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 417. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 418.-421. Rejected as not proven. 422. Accepted but unnecessary. 423. Rejected as not proven that their concerns are "unfounded" unless the source of reclaimed water is restricted to Deer Park WWTP. Otherwise, accepted but unnecessary. 424. Assuming performance in accordance with the application, accepted but unnecessary. 425.-430. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 431. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 432.-445. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 457.-465. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 466.-470. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 471. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 472. Rejected as not proven. See 310., above. 473.-475. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 476. Rejected as not proven. 477.-478. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (that the discharges are.) As to (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 484.-485. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted (although the fourth sentence is not complete) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven. 491.-493. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 494. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 495. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 496.-499. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 500. Last sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 501. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. (Also, Saddlebrook was permitted under different rules; now, the special conditions can only be established after WQBEL studies.) 502.-504. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it is understood that the constant head cell approach proved acceptable for purposes of estimating hydraulic capacity of the site but that it still did not accurately portray what would happen in the ditches and adjacent wetlands.) 505.-509. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 510. Rejected as not proven that the criticism was immaterial. See 502.- 504., above. 511. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 512.-524. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 525. Rejected as not proven that it would without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. (Accepted that it might.) 526. Rejected as not proven that he was directed to "speak in favor of the County's permit application." 527. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 528. Except that 500 feet is a minimum setback distance, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 529.-530. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 531. Rejected as not proven without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. See 525., above. 532.-534. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 535. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 536.-537. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL study. 538.-543. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 544. Rejected as not proven. (Rather, the County stated that it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a) and that it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit).) 545.-546. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 547.-552. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 553.-557. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. 563.-566. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 567. Subordinate to facts not proven. 568. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Also, rejected as not proven that the Ryals Road sinkhole was "small." Otherwise, accepted. All moot and unnecessary. 569. Rejected as subordinate to facts not proven. 570. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 571.-573. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence and word "stable," rejected as not proven. (He stated that the clay was "competent" and that the GPR could detect sinkholes down to 20 feet, but he did not comment specifically on the significance of the down- warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that it is "unknown." The evidence is not clear, but Richtar thought the sinkholes at Oaks Royal opened after construction. Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate, in part to facts not proven and in part to facts supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Except for characterization of sinkhole as being "small," accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. (It is not a substitute for further investigation into the cause of the down-warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 581.-582. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and conclusion of law. 583. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 584. First and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 585. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 586. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 587.-588. Rejected as not proven. (It assumes no new capacity.) 589.-590. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 591. Rejected as not proven. 592.-593. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 594. Rejected as not proven. 595. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 596. Third sentence, not proven. Rest, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 597.-599. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 600. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 601. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 602. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 603.-604. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that he is "one of the most vocal opponents." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes contacted Hughes or that it was Rhodes's primary purpose to suggest Mortensen's discharge. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes suggested Mortensen was incompetent. (Mortensen alleges he made "comments and insinuations" that "basically suggested that MEI was incompetent.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 610.-620. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 621. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 622. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes and Richtar were attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Also, rejected as not proven that the "Department" will not be "truly impartial." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation. 623. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. (The issue is whether they should be granted, not whether the reviewers should have recommended that they be granted.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Department's proposed findings of fact are numbered separately by facility: Oakley Grove Accepted and incorporated. "Rimmed" rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 3.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (No "wastewater" would discharge from the ditch system.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that this was "revealed" by staff inspections. (Under certain conditions, and at certain application rates, it was expected.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. At the time of some if not all of the Department inspections, water was being diverted from some of the main stormwater collection ditches. 13.-18. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 19. "Wastewater effluent ponds" is inaccurate description. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found, and as conclusion of law, that it is "typical." (The proposed finding seems to be describing a Level II WQBEL study.) 26.-29. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. (29. again seems to refer to a Level II WQBEL study.) 30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-36. Accepted. Largely subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. 40.-42. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. If "different nitrogen" means other than inorganic, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as unclear what "distinguishes the type and amount of nitrogen" and what "numerous conditions" means. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 47.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 52.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Rejected as conclusion of law and as not proven what is "typical." Accepted and subordinate to facts found. 61.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 63.-82. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 83.-102. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 103. Rejected as not clear from the evidence whether reclaimed water was being applied on those dates. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 104.-106. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 107.-110. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These violations were temporary aberrations in otherwise proper operation of the facility. They were corrected and do not bear significantly on the question whether the County has given reasonable assurances.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The manual was maintained at a different location.) Moon Lake Road 1.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. One was proposed in evidence presented at the hearing but not in the application. 15.-19. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25.-26. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. "Any" is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-32. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. First sentence, unclear; second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. 36.-38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. "Effluent" rejected to the extent that it infers something other than "reclaimed water." Rejected as to Deer Park WWTP; accepted as to the others. Accepted and incorporated. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 50.-52. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the rainfall/evapotranspiration differences are great enough to have a significant impact on site capacity. The Tampa Airport data was the best to use at the time of the application. Other, closer data became available later and were considered as part of the County's rebuttal case. 53. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the design of the model (constant head cells, boundaries, and single- layer) has a impact on site's hydraulic capacity. (It is understood that the significance of the design of the model is that it does not show flow into the ditches and adjacent wetlands or the relationship between surficial and Floridan aquifers.) 54.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. See 53., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 61.-63. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 64.-65. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 66. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. See 50.-52., above. Limiting storage needs to the .215 MGD design sprayfield capacity only, there is no real question as to the needed storage capacity. Neither differences in the rainfall/evapotranspiration data nor differences in the source of the reclaimed water would make storage capacity deficient. Ryals Road 1.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that it was "effectively withdrawn." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that a $400 fee was paid on July 12, 1991. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 15.-26. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 27. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 28.-33. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 34. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that the residential density is "high". Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales, P.A. P.O. Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Keith C. Hetrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant, Craig Watson, has provided reasonable assurances in justification of the grant of an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit for a rotational grazing dairy to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the applicable rules and policies of the Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, it must be determined whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the industrial waste water facility at issue will comply with the Department's ground water quality standards and minimum criteria embodied in its rules and relevant policy, including draft permit conditions governing the proposed zone of discharge for the project. It must be determined whether the ground water beyond the proposed zone of discharge will be contaminated in excess of relevant state standards and criteria and whether the water quality of the G-II aquifer beneath the site will be degraded. Concomitantly it must be decided whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with the Department's effluent guidelines and policy for dairy operations as industrial waste water facilities, pursuant to the Department's policy enacted and implemented pursuant to its rules for granting and implementing industrial waste water facility permits, as they relate to dairy operations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Craig Watson has applied for an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit to authorize the construction and operation of an 850-cow, rotational grazing dairy, with accompanying dairy waste management system, to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida. The system would be characterized by ultimate spray application of waste effluent to pastures or "paddocks" located on a portion of the 511-acre farm owned by Mr. Watson. The rotational grazing method of dairy operation is designed to prevent the ground water quality violations frequently associated with traditional dairy operations. Traditional dairy operations are often characterized by intensive livestock use areas, which result in denuding of vegetation and consequent compacting of the soil, which prevents the effective plant root zone uptake method of treating dairy waste and waste water for prevention of ground water quality violations. Such intensive use areas are typically areas around central milking barns, central feeding and watering troughs, and other aspects of such operations which tend to concentrate cows in relatively small areas. The rotational grazing dairy attempts to avoid such problems by dividing a dairy farm's surface area into numerous pastures which cows can graze upon with constant and frequent rotation of cows between such pastures. This avoids overgrazing or denuding of the cover crop upon which cows graze, which is so necessary to proper treatment of wastes through root zone uptake. A rotational grazing dairy is designed to re-cycle cow manure for use as fertilizer to grow and re-grow the forage established on the site in the paddocks or pastures. The rotational grazing method is based on the theory that nutrients from cow manure can be captured in the root zone and uptaken as fertilizer for the plant upon which the cattle graze. The waste from the barn area is collected in a waste storage pond or lagoon and sprayed as liquid effluent on the grassy cover crops established in the various pastures, as is the sludge or more solid waste removed periodically from the waste storage lagoon. The applicant, the 511 acres and the project itself would use approximately 440 acres of that tract. The site is approximately 6 miles south of the Santa Fe River. The majority of the soil on the site consists of fine sand and clay-sand type soils. The dairy would contain approximately 850 cows. Lactating cows (cows being milked) would be grazed in some 36 pastures divided by fencing. They would be grazed in the pastures approximately 85 percent of the time and lactating cows would be in the milk and feed barn located in the center of the lactating cow pastures approximately 15 percent of the time. The manure from the barn, approximately 15 percent of the total animal waste, would be collected and placed in the collection lagoon for spray irrigation on the forage crops grown in the pastures. The remaining 85 percent of the waste would result from direct deposition on the pastures by the cows. The rotational grazing dairy would contain permanent watering troughs in each of the 36 pastures. This creates the possibility of numerous "high intensity areas" or areas characterized by a high level of cattle traffic. This circumstance can result in denuding the cover crop or grasses around such water trough areas which would result in a failure, for that area, of the root-zone-uptake means of waste treatment of nitrates. In order to minimize that eventuality, the cattle would be rotated on a frequent basis from paddock to paddock in an effort to maintain nitrate balance and maintain the sanctity of the cover crop, as would the option of employing movable watering troughs so that areas of denudment of the grass or forage cover can be avoided. Manure would be flushed from the milking and feeding barn with approximately 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of water after each milking and at the end of each shift. Wastewater would then flow into a sand trap or filter and thence through an underground pipeline into an 80 foot x 84 foot concrete-lined storage lagoon. The final site of the storage lagoon has not been firmly determined. The site proposed in the application is located in part over a depression which is a suspected karst feature or area that may be subject to sink hole formation. Therefore, consideration should be given locating the waste lagoon so as to avoid that depression and the permit should be conditioned on installation of the lagoon so as to avoid known karst features. Effluent from the storage lagoon would be applied to 245 acres of pasture with a movable spray gun. The settled sludge from the lagoon would be spread on the same land periodically. The primary grass crop on the site intended for cattle forage would be Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda grows through a large part of the year and is normally dormant, in the climate prevailing in the Gilchrist and Alachua County area, from mid-October until early March. There would thus be little nutrient uptake during that time but to off-set that dormant state rye, wheat, rye grass, sorghum and other small grains could be grown on the site during the winter months in order to continue the waste treatment function of the cover crops. MANAGEMENT PLAN The Department currently does not have in effect a specific rule requiring dairies in north Florida to obtain permits to construct and operate per se, although such a rule does prevail for dairies in the Okeechobee Basin in south Florida. Since 1990, however, the Department has, by policy, required permits for new dairy facilities in the Suwannee River Water Management District as industrial waste water facilities. This policy is derived from the general regulatory authority contained in Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62-670, Florida Administrative Code.1 The Department policy is described in a letter in evidence from the Department to applicant Watson containing the required conditions on any grant of the permit, to which the applicant has agreed. Those requirements are as follows: Management Plan A site-specific plan, with design calculations, providing for collection, storage and disposal of all wastewater from milking parlor and of runoff from the 25-year 24-hour storm event from all "high intensity" areas within the dairy farm. The calculations should include stormwater computer model SCS TR-55 or similar. Supporting documentation for the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Water budget and balance, detailed and itemized. Nutrient budget, including wastewater and solids management. Crop management plan with projected crop nutrient uptake rates. Herd management plan, including locations of barns, travel lanes, feed areas, pastures, and management of dry cows and heifers. Treatment and disposal system details, construction details and methods, pumping systems and capacities, irrigation system details, lagoon design and capacity, and site plans. Ground Water Monitoring Plan Determination of ground water depth, variability and direction(s) of flow. Topographic site plan which includes the location of facility property boundaries, sinkholes and cooling ponds. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) if located within Suwannee River Water Management District. Site borings for determination of soil properties, depth and extent of low permeability zones, and confirmation of GPR results. Proposed locations, construction, and development criteria for monitor wells. Inventory of potable wells within 1/2 mile of site. Determination of current ground water quality and compliance. Such plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of the USDA NRCS, at a minimum, and shall include detailed instructions for construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater/runoff collection, storage and disposal systems. DEP Exhibit 1. The various expert and fact witnesses for the Respondents described in their testimony the constituency of that Management Plan and the reasons, within their various scientific discipline areas and their personal factual knowledge concerning why it should be required for the site and project at issue. The 850-cow herd which would be contained on the proposed dairy consists of 550 lactating cows which are milked on a daily basis but also contains 80 dry cows and 220 heifers. Thus some 300 cattle on the dairy will not be milked at any given time and consequently will not contribute to use of the high intensity barn area and the waste collected in the anaerobic lagoon to the extent that those non-milking cattle are not fed and watered in the central barn area. Their waste would more typically be deposited directly on the pastures by those cattle themselves. 10 The project is proposed to provide for on-site containment of all wastes generated by the dairy. There will be no discharge of effluent or other pollutants from the dairy to "waters of the state." The proposed permit requires that no surface water runoff be permitted from the dairy site. The anaerobic or waste collection lagoon is designed to contain all effluent from the milking barn and other high intensity cattle areas in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm occurrence. Additionally, a safety factor of one-foot of "free-board" or additional wall height on the anaerobic lagoon is to be provided as an additional safety factor over and above the level expected to be achieved by the above-referenced storm event. The adequacy of the design capacity of the lagoon system is not in dispute. The proposed project and design calls for four monitoring wells to be located along the northern boundary of the property, which is essentially co-extensive with the boundary of the discharge zone at issue. There would be three compliance wells and one background sampling well. The Department's expert geologist, Mr. Davis, was of the belief that an intermediate monitoring well would not be necessary since the four wells would in his view be sufficient to enforce water quality standards. Those wells are located down-gradient according to the known direction of the ground water flow underneath the site, as required by Rule 62-522.600(6), Florida Administrative Code. Although no intermediate wells are provided for by the plan, they have been required at the other two rotational grazing dairies already permitted by the Department in the Suwannee River Water Management Region at least one of which was within a mile of the outstanding Florida water of the Suwannee River. Intermediate monitoring wells at other dairies have shown increased levels of nitrate, although there is no evidence to show that nitrate levels have exceeded state standards at the boundaries of those dairies or their discharge zones. In any event, however, the totality of the expert testimony demonstrates that intermediate wells would provide an efficacious early warning system to predict increases in nitrate contamination. Thus adjustments in the waste and commercial fertilizer nitrate application could be made so that prevention of violation of nitrate standards, by the time waste water migrated to compliance wells around the boundary of the site, could be effected. This would have a substantial predictive value to avoid future nitrate contaminant violations before they occur and they should be installed as a condition on permitting. The proposed dairy design and operation involving rotational grazing is undisputed to be more beneficial to environmental water quality considerations than a traditional cattle confinement type of dairy. The rotational grazing dairy is characterized by cattle spending minimal time in high intensity milking, feeding, and watering areas. Additionally, there will be a significantly lower level of nutrient loading on the pastures with little accumulation of effluent on the land surface. In fact, the deposition of waste through spray irrigation and through the urination and defecation of the cattle directly will still result in a deficit in nitrates needed for adequate plant growth of the grass, and other crop, ground cover necessary for feeding the cattle and making the operation succeed in a waste treatment sense as well. Consequently, it will have to be supplemented by the addition of some commercial fertilizer, the costs of which will result in a natural incentive for the farmer/applicant to ensure that the nutrient loading on the pastures is at a low, environmentally acceptable level in terms of potential contamination of ground water. The proposed dairy has been demonstrated to be consistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Services' requirements and policies concerning dairies and rotational grazing dairies. It is also undisputed that phosphorus is not of an environmental concern with this application and project. There is sufficient iron and aluminum coating on the soils involved so that excess phosphorus will be retained on the site and it is undisputed that nitrogen is the only limiting factor in the design of the dairy. NITROGEN BALANCE The specific concern with regard to the application and the dairy operation is nitrate leaching below the root zone of the crops grown on the surface of the dairy. The dairy is designed to use nitrogen and nitrates by growing crops in the pastures which will then be eaten by the dairy cows, so that the nitrogen is re-cycled with the resulting animal wastes being used as fertilizer for the same grass or crops which the cattle continuously graze. It is anticipated that the amount of nitrogen produced by the dairy cows will be insufficient to optimize that plant growth. Therefore, additional fertilizer will be required to be applied to the land surface in the pastures at times. The additional nitrogen fertilizer will only be applied when testing of soil, and particularly plant tissue analysis, which will be done a regular basis, shows that application of commercial fertilizer is needed to supplement the natural cattle-waste nitrogen. Nitrogen is a concern because if too much of it is applied to the land surface, it may leach below the plant root zone and eventually migrate to ground water. Nitrogen in high concentrations can be potentially harmful to human health, so state drinking water standards have been established for nitrogen with regard to the issuance of industrial waste water permits. The state drinking water standard for nitrate is ten parts per million at the zone of discharge, that is, the zone of discharge into the ground water aquifer. The dairy is designed in such a way that nitrate levels will not exceed water quality standards. The design is determined by reviewing nitrogen balances and making sure that excess nitrogen will not leach past the root zone. The engineers evaluating and designing the project for the applicant, and testifying concerning it, arrived at a "mass balance" to estimate the nitrogen amounts on the site. This mass balancing is required by the Department in the required estimating of the pounds of nitrate leachate. Nitrogen can be removed from the dairy operating system through atmospheric losses or "volatilization" particularly from the urine component of nitrogen application. It can be removed through milk losses, whereby nitrogen is removed from the digestive system of the cattle through its being bound up to some extent in the milk produced by the cattle and sold off the dairy site, as well as some minimal leaching of nitrate through the soil. The nitrogen that is not removed by volatilization to the atmosphere (excluding the small amount re-deposited by rainfall) will be cycled through the cows and the crops along with any supplemental nitrogen applied from time to time in order ensure optimal plant growth. The mass balance, or amount of pounds of nitrate in the leachate, was determined by considering the amount of water flowing through the system. The re-charge rate was established by the applicant's engineer Mr. Holloway to be 17 inches. This means that there will be 17 inches of rainfall leaching below the root zone of the cover crops to reach ground water. The re-charge rate can be determined by computing the average of the evapo-transpiration and average rainfall and subtracting the difference. It can also be calculated by employing computer models such as the "GLEAMS" model. Mr. Holloway, the applicants engineer, used both sources or methods and reached the figure 17 inches. The GLEAMS model is a computer model that uses local data to determine water budgeting and recharge rates. Mr. Holloway also used a 50 percent volatilization rate for the nitrate losses when determining his mass balance. The applicant's experts also considered the plant uptake rates and concluded that the uptake rate would be between 500 and 700 pounds of nitrogen uptaken per year, per acre, by the plant cover. In order to be conservative and to install a sufficient safety factor in the system to avoid overloading it with nitrates and endangering ground water quality, they employed a lower uptake rate in their calculations and recommendations to the applicant, and thus to the Department, as to the amount of nitrogen applied per acre, per year, from all sources to only be 400 pounds. The conditions imposed by the Department in the "free-form" consideration process and draft permit thus limits the total pounds of nitrogen permissibly applied to this site to 400 pounds per acre, per year. Those 400 pounds of nitrogen are represented by 260 pounds applied from manure from the livestock and no more than 140 pounds applied from commercial fertilizers purchased by the farmer, Mr. Watson. The 400 pounds of nitrogen per acre, per year, as a condition on the permit is less than that allowed at the other rotational grazing dairies previously designed by Mr. Holloway and approved. Additionally, Mr. Cordova of the Department established that there are no rotational grazing dairies that have a higher nitrogen deficit than the Watson dairy. This further provides a significant safety factor not present in other approved dairies. Atmospheric losses of nitrogen up to 80 percent have been documented with similar dairy operations. Atmospheric losses can occur through both volatilization and de-nitrification. Volatilization is the process where nitrogen is removed from the system by the ammonia in the waste products, changing into a gaseous state and migrating into the atmosphere as a volatile gas. De-nitrification is the process where microbes, principally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) reduce nitrates to nitrogen gas and to possibly N2O, which is a volatile, and then allow it to escape into the atmosphere. The applicant has agreed, as a condition to the permit, to apply soil testing and crop tissue analysis as well as quarterly reviewing of the monitoring wells before he determines to supplement the natural fertilizer deposited from the animals with additional commercially purchased fertilizer. The commercially purchased fertilizer would represent a substantial investment in purchase costs and in labor costs for its application. This is an additional safety factor because the applicant clearly would not have an interest in applying any more fertilizer than was absolutely needed to secure optimum plant growth for grazing purposes and nitrogen uptake or waste treatment purposes. This is a further method which will prevent excessive nitrate nutrients from being deposited on the site and possibly into the ground water. Dr. Bottcher, an expert witness for the applicant, testified that he expected nitrate levels at the zone of discharge within the boundaries and beneath the surface of the dairy farm to be between 4 and 6 parts per million. Mr. Holloway expected within a reasonable degree of certainty that on a long term average, with about 4,000 pounds of nitrate leaching below the root zone system, that the concentration directly below the farm beneath the root zone would be between 2 and 3 parts per million. Indeed, the proposed operation would be similar to the existing condition at the Watson farm involving grazing beef cattle on a system of pastures, with row crop operations. Row crops typically have a higher impact of nitrates than the proposed dairy operation would have and beef cow grazing would have a similar impact, although it would be slightly less. Thus the proposed operation is similar in its nitrate impact to the existing conditions at the site. Moreover, the applicant is limited by the permit conditions already agreed to, to spray manure on the spray field area at the rate of less than one half of an inch. The spraying to that limitation would probably take from two to five hours per week. One of the important safety mechanisms in achieving a nutrient balance on the dairy site and in its operation, so as to ensure that ground water quality violations do not occur, is the application rate of nitrate to the land surface. As shown by Dr. Bottcher's testimony, the farmer may increase crop production by applying more fertilizer during seasons of heavy growth of the plant cover. The application rate can then be decreased when there is less growth and, therefore, less need for nutrients to grow the cover crops. A smaller application rate will increase the volatilization rate by avoidance of the infiltration of the nitrate bearing effluent into the soil through hydraulic action and through the saturation mechanism, since a smaller amount of application would tend to leave more of the effluent within less than one inch of the land surface, or on the land surface, thereby allowing it to be volatilized more readily. This circumstance will decrease the amount of nutrient leaching below the root zone and thus prevent the nitrates from being transmitted to the ground water. A number of crops can be grown successfully and appropriately on the site in order to provide the grazing forage needed for the operation of the dairy. Examples, depending upon the season of the year, are rye, wheat, grain sorghum, and various grasses, including Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda is a perennial grass, high in protein available for livestock and is already established on the site. The various other crops can be grown as well and some that grow in the winter months, such as rye, will be grown by Mr. Watson. The growing of the various cover forage crops are limited by the limitation in the permit which is conditioned on maintaining a cover crop growth situation where the average annual uptake is at least 400 pounds per acre (the evidence reveals that in reality it would be more on the order of 500 to 700 pounds per acre, per year). Dr. Pollman and Dr. Upchurch, expert witnesses for the Petitioners, question the nitrogen balancing and leachate predictions arrived at by the applicant's expert witnesses, as well as those of the Department. Neither Drs. Pollman nor Upchurch had any prior experience or expertise with testing for a nitrogen balancing on rotational grazing dairies. Instead they utilized various models to attempt to predict leachate amounts. Dr. Pollman's modeling utilized formulas prepared by the applicant's experts. His modeling showed a high percentage of the predicted outcomes to be actually within regulatory standards for nitrates, even though all of his estimates failed to take into account the variable inclusion or application rate for nitrogen through commercial fertilizer which will only be applied on an as needed basis after appropriate plant tissue and soil tests show that commercial fertilizer should be applied. Likewise, Dr. Upchurch's modeling results were also mostly within acceptable standards for nitrate concentrations unless one assumes that the nitrogen application rates exceed the amounts allowed under the permit, which will not be the case in reality because obviously the permit limits must be complied with. Dr. Upchurch also utilized a model, "NLEAP," which was neither designed nor calibrated to be used for predictive capabilities and is still considered experimental by the NRCS. WASTE LAGOON The applicant proposes to construct a waste storage lagoon designed to hold seven days' waste water generation capacity or 26,000 gallons per day. In addition to that required storage for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, an additional safety factor of one foot of free board has been designed into the lagoon system. The lagoon will be constructed with 6 inch thick, fiber-reinforced concrete. No evidence was offered by the Petitioners that the lagoon design itself was faulty or inappropriate, rather the Petitioners contend that there is a chance that a surface failure beneath the lagoon, by the result of a sink hole developing, particularly in the present preliminary location proposed for the lagoon, could cause the lagoon to crack. The applicant will, however, in order to ensure that the area is suitable for the lagoon have the appropriate engineer "over-excavate" the site in order to minimize the change of a sink hole developing. Additionally, soil borings will be done beneath the surface to provide additional assurance that the lagoon will not fail due to voids or sink holes being present beneath it. Because the lagoon is presently preliminarily located in an area that appears to embody an old, inactive karst depression, consideration should be given to altering the site of the lagoon slightly so as to avoid this area, after soil borings and other investigation is done to ascertain whether the area poses a risk of lagoon failure. Additionally it must be pointed out that because the applicant would need to expend a substantial investment to rebuild the lagoon in the event of such a failure, he has a strong incentive to locate the most suitable geological placement for the lagoon in any event. GEOLOGIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS It is undisputed that the geology underlying the surface of the dairy site is karst in nature: that is, it is characterized by a sub-strate of limestone which can, through the dissolution process caused by percolating water, be susceptible to fissures, voids, underground conduits and sink holes. This, however, is true for essentially all areas used for agriculture in the Suwannee River Area Water Management District, the area to which the subject above- referenced policy concerning installation and permitting of dairies applies. Because of the karst nature of the area, sink holes and other potential surface openings to the ground water could occur at the site. It is most significant, however, that both Mr. Holloway's and Dr. Kwader's testimony established that the soil layer at the site was more than sufficient to protect the ground water. In fact, the soil layer averages from 45 to 50-feet thick over the underlying limestone sub-strate of the Ocala Formation. Further, the proposed permit and its conditions would require a management plan which, with the conditions already placed on the permit and recommended herein, will adequately deal with the possibility of sink holes, "pipes" or "chimneys" developing on the site. The dairy design success is derived essentially from the sufficient nutrient uptake in the root zone of the plant cover, balanced with careful control of the application rates of both the natural fertilizer from the cows and the commercial fertilizer which will supplement it from time to time. Any possibility that the treatment zone for nitrates associated with the plant root zone would be by-passed by the effluent as a result of sink holes or other types of fissures developing can be resolved by proper management practices, which the conditions proposed for the permit and those recommended herein will insure are implemented. For instance, if sink holes, other depressions or holes develop in the site, they will be filled with soil to a depth of five feet, with an impervious clay cap on top of that and then a layer of top soil to allow for re-establishment of the root zone on the surface. The permit should be so conditioned. Moreover, if sink holes or other voids develop that are too large to be so filled and pose a risk of migration of effluent below the root zone to rapidly to the ground water, they will be fenced off and cows will not be allowed in the area. The area will be removed from the irrigation application process until repairs are made, under the presently proposed conditions on the permit. An additional condition should be imposed whereby any sink holes or other voids or similar breaks in the ground surface which pose a risk of effluent rapidly migrating to ground water should be bermed around the circumference to prevent effluent or stormwater laden with nitrates from the land surface from entering the fault or cavity. The applicant is required under the proposed conditions on the permit to report to DEP any sink holes which develop within a certain period of time in the barn area. Cows are not to be permitted to enter into any of the sink hole areas by additional fencing, if necessary. If sink holes develop in the spray field there can be no discharges of fertilizer or irrigation on those areas until the sink holes have been repaired in the manner referenced above. The phosphate pits on the site will also be fenced to prevent discharges past the root zone potentially caused by cattle entering the pits. Additionally, berms are required to be constructed around the phosphate pits to prevent surface water from storm events or other means by which nitrates from the ground surface can be transported into the pits and then possibly to ground water. Any holes which may develop, also called "piping failures," around the periphery of the phosphate pits should be treated in a similar manner to prevent the migration of surface water into those holes whether or not they communicate with the phosphate pits themselves by fencing and berming. These arrangements coupled with the fact that the phosphate pits are characterized by a sufficient soil layer in the bottom of the pits between the bottom surface of the pits and the water table or aquifer will constitute reasonable assurance that the pits will not result in a conduit or path for nitrate-laden, surface water to migrate past the root zone directly into the ground water aquifer. Mr. Holloway, an engineer, testifying for the applicant conducted soil borings on the site to verify the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) surveys as accurate and to ensure that an adequate root zone for treatment purposes existed. Additionally, the NRCS did a ground penetrating radar survey or study on the property. The Petitioners also did a separate ground penetrating radar study performed by Mr. Windschauer. The Petitioners study identified a number of karst-type "anomalies" on the property. The number of anomalies located by Windschauer was not unusual for a such a karst geologic area, but, in any event, all of them had adequate soil depth to support the crops necessary to establish the root zone and maintain the nitrogen balancing. Soil borings were conducted, as well on four of the anomalies, under Dr. Upchurch's supervision. They confirmed that there was adequate soil depth to support crops and protect groundwater. The conditions already imposed on the permit to which the applicant has agreed, require a minimum of five feet of soil depth to ensure adequate treatment including the soil below the root zone and that soil depth and plant cover will have to be maintained even if repairs are necessary to karst anomalies or "sink holes," or the dairy will have to cease operation. The soil depth on the dairy is approximately 45-50 feet and the water table is approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. While the Department's expert, Mr. Davis, is satisfied that the location of the monitoring wells and the number of wells are adequate to monitor compliance with water quality standards for groundwater at the site, the draft permit conditions allow for a change in the number and the location of the monitoring wells. The evidence in the case, including that which shows that an intermediate well at another similar dairy site has shown elevated nitrate levels (although it has not been shown that other conditions are similar to those proposed in this permit application and in the evidence) would indicate that it would be prudent to install intermediate monitoring wells, upgradient, within the dairy site to serve as an early warning, predictive mechanism to avoid water quality violations at the boundary of the zone of discharge. This will allow time for steps to be taken, through various adjustments in the operation, to prevent any violations of the ten parts per million nitrate groundwater standard. The permit is recommended to be so conditioned. Dr. Kwader performed a photolinear trace analysis. He indicated that he did not find any particular linear features such as fractures. A fracture in the limestone stratum is significant in that it can provide a conduit or preferential pathway through the sub-surface rock and thus transfer contaminants from one point to another at a more rapid rate than simple percolation through soil and pores in the rocks. This could result in excessive nitrates being deposited in the groundwater aquifer before an adequate treatment time and mechanism has had its effect on the nitrates. A fracture or conduit flow will, however, cause dilution and Mr. Davis, for the Department, testified that he did not expect a higher concentration of nutrients in a fracture than in the surrounding rock. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution once the nutrients reach the aquifer and begin moving laterally. The dilution will be proportional to the water moving through the conduit, meaning that if the fracture is relatively large, then the concentration of nutrients will be proportionately smaller because of the higher volume of water. Such linear features or fractures are difficult to observe through 50 or more feet of soil existing at the site above the rock stratum and the top surface of the aquifer. Dr. Upchurch, for the Petitioners, also performed a photolinear trace analysis and identified two areas as being highly probable, in his belief, for linear fracture features beneath the farm and surrounding area. He believes there is a possibility of a number of other fractures beneath the Watson property, although the evidence does not definitely identify such nor the measures or precise locations of any such postulated fractures. The Watson property, however, is not unlike any of the surrounding karst terrain with respect to such potential linear fracture features and, in fact, much of north Florida can be so characterized. Moreover, Dr. Upchurch himself agreed that only a limited area of the Watson farm would be impacted by such features, and further, if they are present, they will not impact the nutrient balance aspect of the dairy design because it will perform above many feet of soils separating it from the fractures, if they exist. Limestone pinnacles protruding to the land surface can provide preferential pathways for water to migrate downward to the groundwater aquifer in a manner similar to that posed by a sink hole. They can also function as a break in the soil and plant root zone covering the spray effluent treatment area if allowed to remain exposed. Limestone was observed within one of the mine pits and in a sink hole. It is not clear whether it is a pinnacle which leads down to the sub-strate containing the aquifer or is merely a remnant boulder. In any event, these pinnacles or limestone outcroppings or boulders, whatever they prove to be, will not result in a preferential pathway for water to migrate to the aquifer because the management plan conditioning the permit requires that any limestone protruding to the surface be sheared off and replaced with top soil and vegetation. The permit conditions require that at least five feet of soil overlaid by vegetation must be present for all areas in the spray field. No exposed groundwater was observed in any of the sink holes. In fact the aquifer water level would be at least ten to twenty feet below the bottom of any pit or sink hole observed on the property. An additional 50-foot buffer from the property boundary surrounds all of the paddocks, providing an additional safety factor before the outside boundary of the zone of discharge is reached. The proposed dairy is located approximately six miles south of the Sante Fe River at its nearest point. The Sante Fe River is an outstanding Florida waterway in accordance with Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)27, Florida Administrative Code. The dairy site is not within the flood plain of the river and there will be no surface water discharged from the dairy, including none to the Sante Fe River. Any impact the dairy might have on a water quality in the Sante Fe River would come from groundwater flowing from the site to river. Groundwater beneath the dairy site flows first in a northeasterly direction thence apparently swinging more northerly in the direction of the river, more or less in a "banana shape" flow pattern and direction. Current permitting requirements for such a dairy require that the groundwater leaving or flowing from the zone of discharge must meet "drinking water standards." Those standards are codified in Rules 62-520.400 and 62-522.400, Florida Administrative Code. Those standards require that nitrates not exceed the standard or level of ten parts per million. Dr. Bottcher's expert opinion, which is accepted, is that the dairy design and operation will provide adequate protection to the Sante Fe River with that perameter in mind. He also established that reasonable assurances exist that the river will be adequately protected and not significantly be degraded alone or in combination with other stationary installations in addition to the dairy in question. The dairy waste management system has been established by preponderant evidence to abate and prevent pollution of the groundwater to the extent required by the applicable statutes, rules and policies, in that water or pollution will not be discharged from the dairy in violation of the above-referenced standard. Especially because of the great thickness of soil cover and because of the conditions and protective measures designed into the draft permit, and the project and recommended as conditions herein, in order to prevent effluent from bypassing the root zone treatment area due to karst features the preponderant, credible geological and hydro- geological evidence, including that of Mr. Davis, shows, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that there are not conditions concerning the hydro-geology or geology in the area of the site as to make it unsuitable for the proposed dairy operation in the manner conditioned and recommended herein. SECTION 120.57(1)(E) - FINDINGS The specific permitting requirements for the rotational grazing dairy at issue are embodied in a policy followed by the Department as far back as 1990. Those requirements are not contained in a Department rule. Rather, the policy is presumably enacted pursuant to the statute referenced by the parties, including the Department, in this case as the general pollution abatement statute, Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. The action of the Department in announcing its intent to grant the permit may be deemed an agency action "that determines the substantial interest of a party and that it is based on an un-adopted rule . . ." to the extent that one might deem this policy, consistently followed in a substantial area of the state since 1990, an un-adopted rule for purposes of Section 120.57(e)(1), Florida Statutes. In that context, the agency must demonstrate that the un-adopted rule comports with the statutory definitional of characteristics of a valid rule. Thus the agency must present proof that its un-adopted rule or "policy" would be valid as a rule. In that context the evidence adduced by the Department and indeed by both Respondents, since they presented a joint case, shows that the policy at issue is within the powers, functions and duties delegated by the legislature in Section 403.087,Florida Statutes, which is a generalized grant of authority designed to give the Department the power to regulate in a way to abate the pollution of waters of the state, including groundwater. It has also been adequately shown that the policy or un- adopted rule does not enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of that law being implemented but rather provides sufficient regulatory details so that the general principals, stated in that statute, can be carried out in terms of the installation, regulation and operation of the subject dairy project. It has been adequately proven that the rule is not vague and that it establishes adequate standards for agency decisions on whether or not to permit such a rotational grazing dairy. It does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency nor constitute an arbitrary or capricious act or policy imposition, because the standards and requirements advanced by the Department as being necessary under this policy or un-adopted rule, for a permit to be granted, must, of legal and factual necessity, be predicated on competent, scientific expert and factual evidence. That has been shown, which likewise meets the requirement that the un-adopted rule be supported by competent and substantial evidence. Likewise, the evidence shows that under the circumstances, given the great public necessity in protection of the groundwater and the Floridian aquifer, that the requirements placed upon a grant of a permit for this project and the conditions placed upon its construction and operation do not impose, under the circumstances, excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, Mr. Watson, or the governmental entity where the project is located, in other words, Gilchrist County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered granting the permit requested by Craig Watson to construct and operate the proposed dairy waste management system in accordance with the draft permit proposed by the Department, including the general and specific conditions attached and incorporated therein and also including the general and specific conditions recommended to be adopted and implemented for the proposed system in this Recommended Order, based upon the preponderant, persuasive, credible evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Palm Beach County School District on charges of engaging in misconduct and immorality which impaired his effectiveness as a teacher, in violation of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and of exploiting a professional relationship with a student for personal gain in violation of Rules 6B-1.06(3)(h) and 6B-1.01(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate 342171, covering the area of physical education. At all times material to the administrative complaint, respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Lake Worth High School in the Palm Beach County School District. From 1973, when he joined the Palm Beach County School District, to the date of his suspension for the acts complained of in the administrative complaint, he was consistently rated to be a good teacher. His teaching ability and performance were not in question. He also maintained a close relationship with his students, frequently assisting them beyond the requirements of his job. On the afternoon of May 23, 1983, at approximately 2:30 p.m., respondent entered the K-Mart department store in Lantana, Florida, accompanied by his niece, Cathy Brown. While shopping in the store, he selected a 68-quart cooler, bearing a price tag of $43.58, then proceeded to the hardware department, where he selected a Black and Decker electric drill, bearing a price tag of $22.99. He left the hardware department and proceeded to the garden/patio area or "Garden Shop." Before reaching the double glass doors separating the main building from the Garden Shop, he stopped and placed the large box (containing the 68-quart cooler) and the small box (containing the electric drill) on the floor at the end of an aisle approximately 30 feet from the double glass doors. He then walked directly to the double glass doors opening onto the Garden Shop, and glanced in the direction of the checkout counter located at the Garden Shop exit. He then walked back past the cooler and electric drill, and proceeded into the appliance department where he met Cathy Brown. Ms. Brown had previously selected a package of hair curlers, bearing a price tag of $1.38. He and Ms. Brown briefly examined several items on a display counter in the appliance department, then returned to the place where he had placed the cooler and electric drill. He picked up these two items and proceeded to the Garden Shop; Cathy Brown, who was carrying the hair curlers, accompanied him. Jeanette Grimes, a 17-year-old Lake Worth High School student, was--at that particular time--the cashier at the register located at the Garden Shop checkout counter. Ms. Grimes knew respondent. He had been her physical education teacher for two years and basketball coach for one year. She considered him a friend. As respondent approached the checkout counter where Ms. Grimes was serving as cashier, he placed the box containing the cooler and the box containing the electric drill on the floor at the far end of the checkout counter, not on the counter itself. At that time there were customers at the checkout counter who were being waited on by Ms. Grimes. He and Cathy Brown walked away from the checkout counter and began looking at plants. After Ms. Grimes had finished checking out the customers at her counter, he and Ms. Brown again approached the checkout counter, where he engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. At no time did he place any items on the counter for Ms. Grimes to examine and ring up. At that time she rang up a $1.00 item and a $5.00 item, totalled the transaction at $6.00, then rang up a $.30 tax, and totalled the transaction at $6.30. He handed Ms. Grimes $10.00 in payment for the merchandise. She mistakenly rang up $10.00 for an additional item of merchandise, voided the $10.00 item off her tape, and re-rang $10.00 as cash tendered. At that point the cash register opened and indicated that change in the amount of $3.70 was due. Ms. Grimes gave respondent $3.70 in change and a receipt for the transaction. During the course of ringing up the transaction, the items of merchandise remained on the floor at the end of the counter. Ms. Grimes did not pick up the items and examine them for a price tag while ringing up the amounts. Upon the completion of the transaction, Ms. Brown engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. Ms. Brown handed to Ms. Grimes the box containing the electric drill and the package containing the curlers; Ms. Grimes placed the items into a bag which she gave to Ms. Brown. Respondent then picked up the box containing the 68-quart cooler and left the store, accompanied by Ms. Brown, who carried the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Both respondent and Ms. Brown were aware that they had not paid the full price for the merchandise, and that what they were doing was wrong. Mr. Frank Heim, K-Mart's Loss Prevention Manager, (store detective) observed respondent's activities in the K-Mart continuously, from the time respondent selected the electric drill in the hardware department to his exit from the store. Mr. Heim observed the transaction at the checkout counter, then immediately proceeded to Ms. Grimes' register, examined the register tape, and proceeded to the parking lot to ask that respondent return to the store. Mr. Heim located respondent at his (respondent's) truck in the parking lot. Respondent had placed the cooler in the back of his truck and Cathy Brown was still holding the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Mr. Heim identified himself to respondent, advised him of a problem with the purchase which he had just made, and requested that he return to the store with the merchandise to clear the matter up. Respondent replied that he had paid for the merchandise and had a receipt, that it was not his fault if the cashier rang up the wrong prices. After some additional conversation, respondent removed the cooler from the back of his truck and accompanied Mr. Heim back to the store. Upon entering the store through the Garden Shop entrance, respondent placed the cooler on the floor just inside the entrance, then stopped and attempted to discuss the matter with Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim advised respondent that they could not discuss the matter at that location, that they would have to go to his office. As they approached Mr. Heim's office, respondent again stopped, placed the cooler and the bag containing the other two items on the floor, and stated to Mr. Heim that he was not going inside his office. Mr. Heim replied that they could not discuss the matter in the store, and that respondent would have to accompany him inside his office. Respondent replied that he did not have time to discuss the matter, that he was in a hurry and had to leave. Mr. Heim then advised respondent that he was not free to leave and that he was being detained for shoplifting. Respondent became agitated, stated "You've got your stuff back," and began walking away. Mr. Heim sought help from others, then blocked respondent's path at the glass doors between the main store and the Garden Shop. He told respondent not to make the situation worse by trying to leave the store, but respondent attempted to force his way by Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim grabbed him by the arm and a brief scuffle ensued. At that point, respondent ripped up his cash register receipt and discarded the remnants onto a display counter. Mr. Heim immediately retrieved the remnants and later Scotch- taped the pieces together. After respondent became calmer, he returned with Mr. Heim to his office. After entering the office, Mr. Heim advised respondent of his "Miranda" rights. Mr. Heim asked him for identification and asked him to empty his pockets in order to make sure he had no weapons. Respondent removed a total of approximately $22.00 from one of his socks while in the office. Respondent admits that at the time he entered the K-Mart store, he had only approximately $30.00 on his person. The total retail price of the three items, according to the price tags affixed to each, totalled $67.95. In response to Mr. Heim's questions, respondent continuously stated that it was not his fault that the cashier rang up the wrong prices and that he paid her the amount she rang up. Conflicting accounts of this incident were given by Mr. Heim and respondent. Taking into account Mr. Heim's detached and professional manner, and his lack of apparent bias or motive to falsify, it is concluded that his testimony is more credible than respondent's, and is persuasive. As a result of this incident, respondent was arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Based upon the circumstances described herein, Jeanette Grimes was fired by the K-Mart department store. She was also arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Jeanette Grimes' job at K-Mart was a requirement for one of her school classes, "Work Experience." As a result of her being fired, she failed the course. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced as a result of his conduct and the accompanying notoriety which it received in the community. The circumstances of his offense, his arrest, and his suspension from his teaching position, all received notoriety through publication of articles in three newspapers of general circulation in the Lake Worth community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Palm Beach County dismiss respondent from his employment for violating Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Chamblee, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Abbey G Hairston, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
