The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: whether the challengers have standing; and (2) whether Proposed Rule 40E-8.221(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The District is a government entity existing and operating pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a multi- purpose water management district. The District has the power and duty to adopt MFLs consistent with the provisions of part I of chapter 373. Sanibel is a barrier island sanctuary in Lee County and a duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. Sanibel is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. Sanibel is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. That is why tourists come from around the globe to visit Sanibel, and why Sanibel's residents move and remain there. Sanibel actively participated in the rulemaking process for the Proposed Rule from its inception. Sanibel submitted two technical comment letters to the District during the development of the Proposed Rule. Sanibel's natural resources director, James Evans, attended numerous public and technical meetings associated with the development of the Proposed Rule, speaking on the record at each of the public meetings prior to the adoption hearing by the District's governing board. The Town, located on Estero Island in Lee County, is also a barrier island community and duly-formed municipality with a population of more than 6,000. The Town is situated just south of the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River and on the southeastern edge of the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. The Town is known primarily for its natural beauty, including clear blue waters, shell beaches, world-class sport fisheries, and wildlife refuges. Cape Coral is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and is the largest city between Tampa and Miami, with a population in excess of 150,000. Cape Coral is bordered on the south by the Caloosahatchee River and has over 400 miles of navigable canals and waterways, all of which are within the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. In addition, Cape Coral has an assigned load reduction allocation under the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for the Caloosahatchee River Estuary (CRE) due to it being designated as impaired for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Maintaining sufficient flow in the Caloosahatchee River would have a direct impact on Cape Coral's ability to meet its assigned load reduction allocation. In addition to living on or near the water, a substantial number of the residents of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town engage in water-based recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, boating, kayaking, paddle boarding, bird watching, and nature observation in and around the Caloosahatchee River's greater estuarine area. Fort Myers is a duly-formed municipality in Lee County and has a population of approximately 80,000. Fort Myers is bordered by the CRE throughout its entire jurisdictional boundary. Fort Myers owns and maintains a yacht basin (Ft. Myers Yacht Basin), which includes a mooring field and an anchorage field in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers presented testimony that commercial crabbing and recreational fishing have declined and that it has suffered economic harm due to water quality issues. Fort Myers owns the submerged land in the Caloosahatchee River from Marker 39 to Marker 58, and islands in the river. One such island will be used as a park for recreational activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and hiking for visitors to enjoy the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers also owns and operates piers and a public boat ramp within the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers' dock master has observed declines in seagrasses in the Caloosahatchee River during his 19-year career working at the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin. Fort Myers has adopted a Harbor Management Plan for the management of its mooring and anchorage fields in the Caloosahatchee River. Fort Myers has also been assigned a load reduction allocation under the BMAP for the CRE, and is responsible for a certain amount of pollution reduction over time. Bonita Springs is a municipality of more than 50,000 in Lee County. The borders of Bonita Springs include portions of Estero Bay, which, along with San Carlos Bay and the Caloosahatchee River, is part of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Bonita Springs includes wildlife refuges, such as the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Lovers Key State Park and Recreation Area. While Bonita Springs' strategic priorities include environmental protection and water quality, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Bonita Springs participates in Estero Bay Management and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP). Bonita Springs provides financial assistance to the Caloosahatchee Citizen Sea Grass Gardening Project. Concerns regarding harm to the CRE and tape grasses are shared by a significant number of residents in Bonita Springs and Estero, including injury to the quality of life and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, and kayaking in the waterways. Estero is a municipality of more than 30,000 in Lee County. Estero borders the eastern portion of Estero Bay. Estero includes wildlife refuges, such as Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and Koreshan State Park. While Estero has environmental policies, it does not have environmental staff or test water quality. Estero makes financial contributions to CHNEP. Estero is concerned that the Proposed Rule will affect its water quality, which could affect its residents' quality of life. Estero believes it could be harmed by poor water quality because its residents are portable retirees who can move away, or tourists who can choose not to visit. Captiva Island is situated at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, within the Caloosahatchee's greater estuarine area. CCP is a Florida not-for-profit corporation representing property owners, businesses, and the community of Captiva Island. Captiva Island is part of unincorporated Lee County and is located north of Sanibel. CCP has 200 financial contributors comprised of property owners, businesses, and residents on Captiva Island. CCP's mission includes protection of clean off-shore water, diverse and healthy marine life, and robust native vegetation along with the protection of mangrove fringe and water quality. CCP works with Lee County on provisions of the County's comprehensive plan, which include the quality of adjacent waters. CCP relied on the expertise of James Evans, the director of natural resources for Sanibel, and on the Sanibel- Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). CCP was advised that the Proposed Rule was not sufficient to protect the environment and Vallisneria americana (Vallisneria) or tape grass during the dry season. Caloosahatchee River and Estuary The watershed of the Caloosahatchee River covers approximately 861,058 acres. The watershed consists of four sub-watersheds, three of which are upstream of the S-79 structure. The Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed (estuarine system) is downstream of the S-79 structure. The S-79 structure captures all the upstream discharges of fresh water that go into the estuarine system through the S-79 structure. Major tidal tributaries of the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin are the Orange River and Telegraph Creek, which drain into the upper estuary downstream of the S-79 structure. Fresh water inflows from these and other tributaries also contribute fresh water into the estuarine system. The Caloosahatchee River was originally a natural watercourse running from its origin at Lake Flirt to San Carlos Bay. It is currently defined as the "surface waters that flow through the S-79 structure, combined with tributary contributions below S-79 that collectively flow southwest to San Carlos Bay." Fla. Admin. Code. R. 40E-8.021(2). Man-made alterations to the Caloosahatchee River began as early as 1884, but major alterations began in the 1930s with the authorization and construction of the C-43 Canal. The C-43 Canal runs 41.6 miles from Lake Okeechobee at Moore Haven, i.e., from the S-77 structure, to Olga, i.e., the S-79 structure. The C-43 Canal serves as a conveyance feature to drain water from the three sub-watersheds located upstream of the S-79 structure and convey regulatory discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. In 1957, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) prepared a report focused on drainage, flood control, and navigation needs of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, and one recommendation was construction of the S-79 structure. The key objectives of the S-79 structure were to eliminate undesirable salinity in the lower Caloosahatchee River, prevent the rapid depletion of water supplies, and raise the prevailing dry weather water table levels. The S-79 structure was constructed in 1965. It is a lock and dam structure that is also known as the Franklin Lock and Dam. The S-79 structure captures all upstream fresh water discharges that go into the CRE. The S-79 structure demarcates the head of the CRE, which extends 26 miles downstream to Shell Point, where it empties into San Carlos Bay in the southern portion of the greater Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Most of this surface water flow takes a southerly route, flowing to the Gulf of Mexico under the Sanibel Causeway that crosses San Carlos Bay. When fresh water inflows are high, tidal action pushes some of this water back up into Matlacha Pass and Pine Island Sound. Additionally, some water exits to the south and flows into Estero Bay through Matanzas Pass. Salinity exhibits a strong gradient in the CRE. Changes in the watershed upstream of the S-79 structure have profoundly influenced the delivery of fresh water to the CRE. Runoff is now more variable with higher wet season flows and lower dry season discharges. Large volumes of fresh water during the wet season can flush salt water from the tidally-influenced sections of the water body, resulting in low salinity conditions throughout most of the CRE. In contrast, fresh water inflow at the S-79 structure can stop entirely during the dry season, especially during significant drought events. This results in saline intrusion that can extend upstream to the S-79 structure. Fluctuations of this magnitude at the head and mouth of the system cause mortality of organisms at both ends of the salinity gradient. Downstream of the S-79 structure, the CRE was significantly altered by multiple dredging activities, including the removal of extensive shoals and oyster bars. Seven automobile bridges, a railroad trestle, and the Sanibel Causeway were built between the 1880s and 1960s. A large canal network was built along the northern shoreline of the CRE in Cape Coral. To provide navigational access from the canal network to deeper water, multiple access channels were dredged within the CRE. Alterations to the delivery of fresh water combined with structural changes to the tidally-influenced sections of the water body have had lasting ecological consequences. These include the loss of extensive shoals and oyster bars, loss of a flourishing bay scallop fishery, and significant decline in seagrass cover in deeper areas. MFLs An MFL is the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. The District's rules define significant harm as the "temporary loss of water resource functions, which results from a change in surface or ground water hydrology, that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The rule further specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. Id. MFLs are calculated using the best information available. The regulatory agency is required to consider changes and structural alterations to watersheds, and the constraints such changes or alterations placed on the hydrology of an affected watershed. Certain waterbodies may not serve their historical hydrologic functions and recovery of these waterbodies to historical hydrologic conditions may not be economically or technically feasible. Accordingly, the regulatory agencies may determine that setting an MFL for such a water body based on its historical condition is not appropriate. Caloosahatchee MFL For the CRE, MFL criteria were designed to protect the estuary from significant harm due to insufficient fresh water inflows and were not guidelines for restoration of estuarine functions to conditions that existed in the past. The MFL criteria consider three aspects of the flow in terms of potential significant harm to the estuary: (1) the magnitude of the flow or the volume of fresh water entering the estuary; (2) the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm; and (3) the return frequency, or the number of times the MFL can be violated over a number of years before it results in significant harm, recognizing that natural climatic variability will be expected to cause fresh water inflows to fall below recommended levels at some natural frequency. The CRE MFL initially adopted in 2001 was primarily based on the salinity tolerance of one valued ecosystem component (VEC). The VEC was Vallisneria americana or tape grass, a fresh water aquatic plant that tolerates low levels of salinity. A major assumption of this approach was that flow and salinity conditions that protect Vallisneria would also protect other key organisms in the estuary. The 2001 CRE MFL was based on a regression model for estimating the relationship between surface salinity measured at the Ft. Myers monitoring station located in the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin and discharge at the S-79 structure. Although the District monitors surface and bottom salinity at multiple stations in the CRE, the Ft. Myers monitoring station is located centrally in the CRE and at the historical downstream extent of the Vallisneria habitat. The Ft. Myers monitoring station also has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. The fixed data sondes that monitor surface and bottom salinity are located at 20 percent and 80 percent of total river depth measured at mean low water. The data sondes continuously measure temperature and specific conductivity and, depending on the manufacturer, contains programs that calculate salinity. Those calculations are based on standards recognized and used worldwide by estuarine, marine, and oceanographic scientists.1/ The regression model only implicitly included inflows from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed downstream of the S-79 structure. To address this, during the 2003 re-evaluation, a linear reservoir model of Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin inflows was developed. The regression model results showed that a total inflow from S-79 plus the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin of about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) was required to produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station. Thus, the 2001 CRE MFL of 300 cfs measured at the S-79 structure would produce a salinity of 10 at the Ft. Myers monitoring station only with additional inflow from the downstream Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed. However, that additional inflow estimate was highly uncertain. The conclusion was that actual flow measurements over a period of time were needed in order to perform more robust calibrations for the new models that were being developed. The Re-evaluation The District's re-evaluation effort began in 2010 after the Conservancy of Southwest Florida filed a petition requesting review of the Caloosahatchee MFL. At the time, the governing board denied the petition but directed staff to undertake additional research and monitoring to ensure a future revision would be supported by the best information available. The first step was to review the September 2000 Final Peer Review Report (PRR) for the initial adoption. The 2000 PRR identified several items the District should consider, including a hydrodynamic salinity model, a numerical population model for Vallisneria, quantification of habitat value for Vallisneria, and documentation of the effects of minimum flows on downstream estuarine biota. The 2000 PRR documented concerns that the current MFL was based solely on the salinity tolerance of Vallisneria and recommended using multiple indicator species. To address those recommendations, the District conducted studies to evaluate multiple ecological indicators, such as zooplankton, aquatic vegetation, oysters, benthic communities, and blue crabs, in the Caloosahatchee from the S-79 structure to beyond Shell Point. In addition, the District collected flow data from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed for at least five years to develop watershed, flow, and hydrodynamic models that could properly simulate inflows and salinity responses. When the initial research was complete in 2016, the District published the Draft Science Document containing 11 component studies. In September 2016, the District held a two- day Science Symposium to present the 11 component studies and gather public comment. In response to public comment, the District performed additional evaluations, modeling, and updated the component studies to produce a Draft Technical Document. A Peer Review Panel reviewed the Draft Technical Document, which included the Draft Science Document. The Peer Review Panel has over 150 years of combined relevant scientific experience. The Peer Review Panel toured the CRE by air and water. The District also held a Peer Review Session to engage the public and obtain feedback. The Peer Review Panel's 2017 report (PRP report) stated that the District had "crafted a well-executed and well- documented set of field and laboratory studies and modeling effort" to re-evaluate the CRE MFL. The PRP report supported the 11 component studies, the modeling, the evaluations, and the initial proposed rule language. The Final Technical Document published in January 2018 incorporated five different models and additional science, examining the entire watershed and the criteria itself. The Final Science Document was Appendix A to the Final Technical Document and contained the scientific research and analysis that was done for the 11 component studies, the modeling, and the additional scientific analyses performed in response to public and stakeholder input. The District initiated rule development in December 2017. Rule development workshops were held in February and June 2018 and a stakeholder technical meeting was held in May 2018. The District validated the comments after each workshop and meeting, and revised the proposed rule language. The District published its Notice of Proposed Rule on July 23, 2018.2/ At its September 13, 2018, meeting, the District's governing board held a public hearing on the Proposed Rule. The mayors of Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town publicly commented at the hearing. After considering public comments, the governing board adopted the Proposed Rule. The District documented and responded to each public comment, memorializing the information in the Final Technical Document. Later, after the rule workshops and May 2018 technical meeting, the District prepared and presented all of the updated information, including public comment, at the September 2018 adoption hearing. Thus, the District's re-evaluation process was open and transparent. The Re-evaluated Caloosahatchee MFL The science supporting the re-evaluation involved a comprehensive assessment of the effects of diminished dry season fresh water inflows on the CRE. The dry season was chosen for two reasons. First, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats. Second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The 11 component studies targeted specific concerns regarding physical and ecological characteristics. Together they offered a holistic understanding of the negative effects of diminished fresh water inflow on estuarine ecology. The re-evaluated MFL criteria were developed using a resource-based approach. The approach combined the VEC approach and the habitat overlap concept. The habitat overlap approach is based on the idea that estuaries serve a nursery function and salinity determines the distribution of species within an estuary, including distribution during different life stages. The combined approach studied the minimum flow requirements of the various indicator species in terms of magnitude, duration, and return frequency, resulting in the following three aspects of the flow: (1) for magnitude, a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure; for duration, an MFL exceedance occurs during a 365-day period when the 30-day moving average flow at S-79 is below 400 cfs and the 30-day moving average salinity exceeds 10 at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station; and (3) for return frequency, an MFL violation occurs when an exceedance occurs more than once in a five-year period. The magnitude component is based on the salinity requirements of Vallisneria, along with results from the 11 studies modeling salinity and considering the salinity requirements of the other VECs. The duration component is based mainly on the estimates of rate of loss of Vallisneria shoots when salinity rises above 10 and the recovery rate of the shoots when salinities fall back below 10. Return frequency was determined based on long-term rainfall records rather than flow measurements from the S-79 structure, which the PRP report felt was well justified. In addition to the component studies, the re-evaluated MFL criteria and existing recovery strategy were evaluated using a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating long-term fresh water inflow to the CRE associated with varying management options, the resulting salinity in the CRE, and the ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were utilized. Three models simulated fresh water inflows to the CRE: two for S-79 flows; and one for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed flows. The other two models were a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model and a Vallisneria model. Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed has a number of tributaries that drain fresh water into the CRE. The flow at several of the tributaries was monitored for a five-year period. The measured flow was used to calibrate a watershed model and conduct a long-term simulation. The results showed an average fresh water inflow for all seasons of approximately 430 cfs. The average fresh water inflow during the dry season was 245 cfs while the wet season average fresh water inflow was 613 cfs. Fresh water inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub- watershed was approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE while 80 percent was released through the S-79 structure. Petitioners' and Intervenors' Objections 400 cfs Is Too Low Sanibel relied on a memorandum prepared by Dr. David Tomasko (Tomasko report) concerning his company's review of the January 2018 Final Technical Document supporting the Proposed Rule. The Tomasko report, dated October 23, 2018, was in the form of a "technical memorandum" outlining "preliminary findings." The Tomasko report was admitted as a joint exhibit; however, Dr. Tomasko did not testify at the final hearing. The Tomasko report is hearsay that was not used to supplement or explain competent direct evidence. Although hearsay is admissible in this proceeding, it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of fact.3/ See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The District's expert witnesses, who testified at the final hearing, explained that ten of the 11 component studies identified average indicator flows at S-79 ranging from 237 to 545 cfs with standard deviations ranging from plus or minus 57 to plus or minus 774 cfs.4/ The District's experts performed three different evaluations of those flow results. They identified the mean of all the means, calculated the median of the means, and performed a probability density function. The flow results for each of the three evaluations were 381 cfs, 400 cfs, and 365 cfs, with standard deviations that ranged from plus or minus 277 cfs to plus or minus 706 cfs. The District's experts testified that the three flow results are indistinguishable from a statistical point of view. The District chose 400 cfs because it was the highest flow result, and, therefore, the most protective of the three. The Petitioners and Intervenors failed to present evidence that showed any deficiencies in the District's component studies, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, or statistical modeling, or analysis of compliance data. The preponderance of the evidence established that the District used the best available science to calculate the MFL criteria. The District did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it chose 400 cfs as the magnitude component of the MFL criteria. Inclusion of Salinity in the MFL Criteria The preponderance of the evidence also established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. It supports essential ecological goods and services, is sensitive to salinity fluctuations at the ecosystem scale, and has value to a variety of stakeholders. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. A combination of field monitoring, mesocosm studies, and modeling results allowed the application of Vallisneria responses as a platform to quantify the effects of high salinity duration in the upper CRE. Component Study Eight reviewed the development and initial application of a simulation model for Vallisneria in the CRE. The Vallisneria model was used to evaluate the salinity conditions that led to net annual mortality, or, in other words, the duration of high salinity exposure that led to decreased Vallisneria shoots versus the duration of low salinity conditions required for recovery. Component Study Seven included an analysis of the relationship between the number of consecutive days where salinity at the Ft. Myers monitoring station was greater than 10 and the percentage of initial Vallisneria shoots remaining at the end of each high salinity period. To further evaluate the duration element associated with the MFL criteria, the field monitoring data contained in Component Study Seven was evaluated with the mesocosm and modeling results. All three sources were analyzed similarly to derive a combined curve showing high salinity exposure duration that is significantly harmful to Vallisneria. The model also provided information that was used to quantify the duration of low salinity conditions required for Vallisneria to recover a relative fraction of shoots after high salinity exposure. Merging the exposure and recovery evaluations facilitated a determination of the unfavorable salinity duration that could significantly harm Vallisneria habitat. With significant harm defined as the environmental harm from which two years are required to recover, the determination was that Vallisneria should experience no more than 55 consecutive days of salinity greater than 10. However, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the percentage loss of Vallisneria habitat after 55 days of high salinity exposure. In response, the District conducted further analysis of modeling results and revised the duration component to accept the stakeholder recommendation, now expressed in the Proposed Rule, of a 30-day moving average salinity greater than 10. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that by expressing the MFL as a "flow plus salinity component" the Proposed Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. However, the duration component is part of compliance and represents the duration of time that flows can be below the recommended level before causing significant harm to the indicator species Vallisneria. The MFL in the Proposed Rule is a 30-day moving average flow of 400 cfs measured at the S-79 structure. Flow is both measured and operationally controlled at the S-79 structure. However, as previously found, there are other sources of fresh water entering the CRE downstream of the S-79 structure. The District does not control and cannot control these downstream sources, which modeling reveals contribute approximately 20 percent of total fresh water inflow to the CRE. By including salinity, the District can account for fresh water inflows coming from the tidal basin when there are low or no flows at S-79 since the significant harm threshold in the CRE is directly related to salinity tolerance of the indicator species Vallisneria. The District's experts also testified that salinity can be used as a flow component because it is not affected by chemical or biological processes and is an indicator of how much fresh water is entering the system.5/ Salinity is included in the duration component of the MFL criteria and is an exceedance criterion because the science established that the salinity gradient is crucial to the overall health of the CRE. Including salinity in the duration component of the MFL criteria achieves the purpose of the statutory mandate to set MFLs that are designed to avoid significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. No Unit of Measurement for Salinity The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not contain any units for salinity. The UNESCO calculation is the standard equation used by the estuarine and marine science community to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity. The District's experts testified that the UNESCO calculation reports salinity as a ratio, which is a dimensionless number and has no units. The District uses the UNESCO calculation and performs the conversion in a spreadsheet that it maintains. In some instances, certain brands of data sondes are programmed to perform the calculation and provide the salinity number. The preponderance of the evidence established that use of the practical salinity unit (PSU) is not technically correct. PSU is a misnomer, a pseudo-unit equivalent to a unitless salinity number. The Petitioners' and Intervenors' expert witness, Dr. Anthony Janicki, conceded there is no difference between reporting salinity as unitless or as PSU. And although technically incorrect, he suggested that placing the word "practical" or putting "PSU" in the Proposed Rule would reduce confusion and vagueness. However, since the preponderance of the evidence established that use of PSU is not technically correct, the use of a pseudo-unit would actually cause confusion instead of reduce confusion. The Petitioners and Intervenors also argued that the Proposed Rule is vague because the language does not state that the method of measuring salinity is specific conductivity, or that the equation used to convert specific conductivity and temperature data to salinity is the standard developed by UNESCO. The Petitioners and Intervenors essentially argued that members of the public and those who may be regulated by the Proposed Rule are left to guess about the method or methods used to measure salinity. Because the Proposed Rule identifies and locates by latitude and longitude coordinates the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station as the location where salinity would be measured for compliance, the Proposed Rule language is not vague. The Proposed Rule is not vague because it does not describe the data sondes, what parameters are measured by the data sondes, and how those parameters are converted to a salinity number. Salinity Monitoring Location and Mean Low Water The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the Proposed Rule is vague for failing to define the phrase "20% of the total river depth at mean low water," and is arbitrary or capricious for failing to include more than one salinity monitoring station. Total river depth or the water column depth is a standardized measurement that is made from the surface down to the bottom of the river bed. Mean low water is commonly understood in the oceanographic and coastal sciences community as the average of all low tides over the time period defined as the national tidal datum epic. The District's expert witness, Dr. Cassondra Armstrong, testified that mean low water can be determined by using two documents prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), i.e., the NOAA tide charts and glossary. The District's expert witnesses testified that "20% of the total river depth at mean low water" is the location of the data sonde at the Ft. Myers monitoring station that measures surface salinity. This is also the depth at which Vallisneria is located in the CRE. Since, the Proposed Rule language simply identifies the location of the existing data sonde at the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station, the language is not vague. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Ft. Myers salinity monitoring station has two salinity data sondes, the one at 20 percent of the total river depth and the other at 80 percent. The data sonde at 20 percent of the total river depth was identified in the Proposed Rule for the following reasons. First, this is the depth where Vallisneria grows and is representative of the salinity exposure for Vallisneria. Second, it guarantees the data sonde is always submerged and able to record data. Third, it has the most comprehensive period of record of monitoring data available. As previously found, Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE. The location of Vallisneria habitat in the upper CRE and its negative response to increased salinity made it an excellent candidate as an ecological indicator for fresh water inflow. Because the preponderance of the evidence established that Vallisneria continues to be a particularly useful indicator of environmental conditions in the CRE, the choice of the Ft. Myers monitoring station is not arbitrary or capricious. Water Resource Functions vs. Environmental Values The District's MFL rule specifies that a water body's specific water resource functions addressed by an MFL are defined in the MFL technical support document. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-8.021(31). The Final Technical Document identified the relevant water resource functions of the CRE as fish and wildlife habitats, estuarine resources, water supply, recreation, navigation, and flood control. The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the environmental values listed in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-40, also known as the Water Resource Implementation Rule, were not adequately addressed in the Final Technical Document. A proposed rule challenge is not the proper forum to determine whether a proposed rule is consistent with the Water Resource Implementation Rule. Such a determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection under section 373.114(2), Florida Statutes. Consistency of the District's Proposed Rule with the Water Resource Implementation Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection is not a basis in this proceeding for a finding that the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Other Issues The Petitioners and Intervenors raised other issues during the hearing, although not specifically argued in their proposed final order. Since those issues were identified as disputed issues in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, they are addressed below. 1. Elimination of Single-day Exceedance Criterion During the rulemaking process, Sanibel and SCCF sent the District a letter requesting justification for eliminating the single-day exceedance salinity criterion in the current rule. The District staff evaluated the available Caloosahatchee River MFL compliance record, dating back to when the MFL was adopted in September 2001. The District maintains a historical record of MFL monitoring data and reviewed it to determine if the single-day exceedance salinity criterion was exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. The compliance record showed five exceedance events of the single-day salinity criterion have occurred. However, the compliance record also showed that the 30- day moving average salinity criterion had already been exceeded before the five events occurred. In other words, the single-day criterion was never exceeded before the 30-day moving average criterion. Based on this evaluation, the District eliminated the single-day exceedance salinity criterion because it did not provide any additional resource protection. The District's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. 2. Not Using the Latest Model Evaluation of recommended MFL criteria and a recovery strategy for the CRE were greatly aided by integration of a suite of hydrologic and ecological models simulating (1) long-term fresh water inflow associated with varying management options, (2) the resulting salinity in the estuary, and (3) ecological response of indicator species that are sensitive to low fresh water inflows. Five models were specifically utilized, including three models for simulations of fresh water inflows to the CRE, a three-dimensional hydrodynamic salinity model, and a Vallisneria model. The three models simulating fresh water inflows included (1) the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) to simulate fresh water discharges at S-79, which includes regional operations of Lake Okeechobee and incorporates Caloosahatchee River irrigation demands; (2) the C-43 Reservoir Model, which uses the SFWMM-simulated daily S-79 flow as input and simulates the management benefit of the C-43 Reservoir; and (3) the Watershed (WaSh) Model to simulate tidal tributary inflow from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin sub-watershed. The Caloosahatchee Hydrodynamic/Salinity Model was based on the Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Three-dimensional Model (CH3D) modeling framework with the functionality of simulating the spatial salinity structure across the entire estuary. The Vallisneria Model took the CH3D modeled salinity as input to simulate Vallisneria growth at critical locations in the estuary. The District did review the more recent Environmental Fluid Dynamic Code (EFDC) model developed for the Caloosahatchee Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and being used by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District's expert witness, Dr. Detong Sun, testified that until 2014, the hydrodynamic part of the EFDC model was not working well. He testified that in 2016, the District still had concerns and suggested the use of the District's continuous monitoring data from seven locations across the CRE rather than grab samples for model calibration. Dr. Sun's opinion was that the EFDC model has improved in recent years, but was still behind the CH3D model in terms of performance. The District's expert witness, Dr. Amanda Kahn, testified that the water quality component of the EFDC model was not appropriate for this re-evaluation because the MFL is about water quantity, not water quality. The water quality component of the EFDC model addresses nutrient loadings, not minimum flows. Dr. Kahn also testified that in setting MFL criteria for the CRE, salinity was not a water quality component. Salinity was used as a water quantity component because it does not change with biological processes and can be a measure of how much fresh water is coming into the system. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the District's decision not to use the EFDC model was not arbitrary or capricious. 3. Seasonality The Petitioners and Intervenors argued that the District is required to set an MFL that varies by season. For the CRE, the District set MFL criteria that protect the system from low flow that would occur in either the wet or dry season. As previously found, the re-evaluation studies focused on the dry season for two reasons: first, because it is well-established that the upstream migration of salt combined with reduced fresh water inflow alters the health and productivity of estuarine habitats; and second, because the dry seasons are the times when the current MFL criteria are likely to be exceeded or violated. The MFL statute states that "when appropriate, [MFLs] may be calculated to reflect seasonal variations." § 373.042(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The preponderance of the evidence showed that for the CRE, it was not necessary to set an MFL that varied by season. Improper Purpose The Petitioners, Sanibel, Cape Coral, and the Town, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Intervenors, Fort Myers, Estero, Bonita Springs, and CCP, did not participate in this proceeding primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The Intervenors did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing in this cause, the following pertinent facts are found: 1/ By application number 25793, the applicant seeks a permit to construct and operate a proposed surface water management system to serve a 2,541 acre project within the St. Johns River Basin in Indian River County. The proposed system will consist of a perimeter dike, a central canal with interior laterals and four discharge pumps. The applicant will be discharging into the St. Johns Marsh and seeks a discharge capacity of 139,000 GPM. Three of the discharge pumps are to be located at the southeast corner of the property and a two-way 25,000 GPM pump is to be located at the intersection of the central canal and the western boundary of the property. By application number 25794, the applicant seeks a permit for the use of surface and artesian water for the irrigation of the same 2,541 acres of pasture and truck crops. The applicant requests to withdraw surface water from the St. Johns Marsh by means of a two-way 25,000 GPM pump located at the intersection of the central canal and the western property boundary and to withdraw water from the Floridan aquifer by means of eight eight-inch artesian wells. The amount requested is 5,294 acre-feet per year with a maximum monthly pumpage of 1.47 billion gallons. A staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) concluded that the major problem with the permit applications is the impact on water quality of the receiving bodies of water and that nutrients and other pollutants will be introduced into runoff waters discharged into the St. Johns Marsh, which is the source of the public water supply for South Brevard County. The staff therefore recommended that the applicant institute a water quality and quantity monitoring program to monitor discharges to the Marsh. The staff further recommended that the applicant not be allowed to discharge from the western property boundary nor irrigate from the ditch on the western property boundary. It was recommended that the two-way 25,000 GPM pump be installed adjacent to the other pumps located at the southeast corner of the property. More specifically, the staff found that if a permit were to be issued pursuant to application number 25793, it should be subject to the conditions that: the allowable discharge capacity to be 104,000 GPM, with discharges to be east to the St. Johns Marsh by means of one 44,000 GPM pump, one 35,000 GPM pump and one 25,000 PM two-way pump to be located at the southeast corner of the property; the applicant notify the FCD prior to any excavation of materials from land lying east of the east property boundary and, if such excavation is done, a discontinuous borrow ditch be created by either leaving 25 foot portions of undisturbed marsh or by placing 25 foot earthen plugs at approximately 500 foot intervals (this was later modified at the hearing to 1,000 foot intervals); and the applicant submit monthly reports of total daily discharges and water quality, the samples to be taken at the southeast corner of the property. With regard to application number 25794, the staff recommended that if such permit were to be issued, it be subject to the following conditions: for the use of surface water, an annual allocation of 2329.3 acre- feet per year and for the use of artesian water, an annual allocation of 2518.5 acre-feet per year, with a maximum monthly pumpage from all sources of 355.3 million gallons; no withdrawal of surface water from the St. Johns Marsh when the water level in Blue Cypress Lake drops to 22.0' msl.; surface water to be withdrawn by means of a 25,000 GPM two-way pump located at the property's southeast corner; artesian waters to be withdrawn by eight eight-inch wells with effective and operative controls placed thereon and analyses of water samples from the water discharge of each the submission of monthly reports of total monthly pumpages and total monthly flows; and permit for the withdrawal of surface and artesian water to expire on January 15, 1979. At the hearing, the applicant agreed to the recommended conditions placed upon the permits by the staff report with the exception of: the amount of the allowable discharge (staff recommending 104,000 GPM as opposed to a desired 139,000 GPM); the location of the 25,000 GPM two-way pump (staff recommending southeast corner as opposed to a proposed site on the western boundary of the property); the expiration date of January 15, 1979. The Environmental Protection Bureau of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission requested the FCD to delay issuance of permits for all projects in the Upper St. Johns River basin until a comprehensive water management plan for the area is formulated. Read into the record was a resolution adopted by the Commission on May 16, 1975, recommending that "the further destruction of the marsh be curtailed and a plan be formulated for the return of the diverted waters as a management tool for restoration of fish and wildlife resources." On behalf of the Florida Audubon Society, Mr. Charles Lee contended that, because of this resolution and request of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and that agency's constitutional status, the FCD is precluded from issuing the subject permits. Intervenors and members of the general public who were opposed to the issuance of the instant permits expressed the following concerns: the low water quality and quantity of the St. Johns River and its marshes; the decline in hunting and fishing because of agricultural activities in the St. Johns River valley; the loss of marsh land due to agricultural activity; the lack of a basic water management program for the area; the lack of remedial measures should degradation of the water occur; and the lack of an expiration date for the surface water management system permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is the recommendation of the hearing officer that application numbers 25793 and 25794 be granted, subject to those special conditions set forth in the Staff Report as modified by the following: In paragraph number 3 on page 14 of the Staff Report, substitute the words "1,000 foot intervals" for "500 foot intervals;" Add as paragraphs 6 on page 15, paragraph 6 on page 16 and paragraph 7 on page 18 the following: "Should the data in the monthly reports submitted by the applicant indicate the occurrence of a degradation of the waters utilized, the applicant will be required to remedy the situation causing the de- gradation." Add as paragraph 7 on page 15 the following: "7. This permit shall expire on January 15, 1979." Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1976, Respondent's territorial jurisdiction was expanded by transfer of substantial areas formerly regulated by other water management districts. The transfer was effected pursuant to legislative revision of Section 373.069, F.S., which delineates the geographic boundaries of Florida's water management districts. The following rule promulgated by Respondent became effective on January 31, 1977, and was amended on February 3, 1981: 40C-4.031 (previously 16I-4.04, Florida Administrative Code). Implementation. These regulations shall become effective February 1, 1981, throughout the District and will be implemented in those areas transferred to the St. Johns River Water Management District from the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District on the same date. Implementation in other areas will be effected pursuant to public hearing at subsequent dates determined by the Board. The regulations implemented by the above rule establish permitting procedures for projects which involve holding, diversion, or discharge of significant quantities of water. However, permits are required only in the transferred territory. Petitioner owns 11,500 acres located within the territory where permits are required. Petitioner seeks to improve his property for agricultural purposes, which involves the holding and diversion of surface waters. He has accepted Respondent's determination that his property is within the permitting area and has filed the requisite application. However, Petitioner contends that he is unable reasonably to confirm Respondent's determination that his property is situated in the regulated territory. Respondent demonstrated that a determination can be made by comparing the statutory descriptions of Respondent's jurisdiction prior to and after the transfer, and has maps available which reflect the permitting area. To accomplish this task independently requires knowledge of legal territorial descriptions (section, township, range) and a laborious comparison of legal descriptions set out in the 1975 and 1977 versions of the Florida Statutes. At the time reorganization of the water management districts became effective (December 31, 1976) , Respondent had limited regulatory capability. Its decision to implement permitting only in the transferred territory was based on this limited capability and the need to preserve continuity 1/ in areas where permits had previously been required. In the years following this decision, Respondent has continued to require permits only in those areas transferred in 1976. The evidence established that the boundary between the regulated and unregulated areas is one of convenience and has no hydrological or other scientific basis. Respondent is considering a revision of its rules to become effective sometime in 1982. This revision may enlarge the permitting territory and modify the criteria for grant or denial of permits. Petitioner asserts that his application is being evaluated by rules not yet adopted and fears that new standards may be applied after hearing on the application, which is now under consideration pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), F.S., (DOAH Case No. 81-1588). Hearing is scheduled for December, 1981. In support of this contention, Petitioner points to the technical staff report prepared in May, 1981, which recommends denial of the application giving, among others, the following reasons: Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of the Upper Basin Plan catalogue a history of a diminish- ing water resource in the upper basin. The water resources in the upper basin have been harmed and the proposed project aggravates the existing harm to the resource. Moreover the proposed project is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district for the upper basin. Resolutions 75-11 and 81-2, the 1977 Management Plan, and Volumes 1 and 2 of Phase I of the Upper Basin Plan indicate that the objectives of the District are to curtail inter-basin diversion and maintain and enhance, if possible, the existing hydro- logic regime in the upper basin. The pro- posed project is not in conformance with either of these statutory requirements. (Emphasis added.) An earlier technical staff report prepared in November, 1980, recommended grant of the application, with some modification. This report did not refer to inter-basin diversion.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department should issue Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 43-0197751-003 to Reily.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the agency that approved the permit at issue in this proceeding. The Department is responsible for protecting the water resources of the state in conjunction with the water management districts, and it is also responsible for authorizing the use of sovereignty submerged lands pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The activities authorized by the permit are as follows: The purpose of the project is to install a 395 linear foot upland retaining wall, with one 10 linear foot return, located at least 5-feet landward of the Mean High Water Line, and an 85 linear foot seawall, with one 10 linear foot return, located at the Mean High Water Line. Riprap shall be installed at a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope along the 85 linear foot seawall, and will extend out a maximum of 4-feet waterward of the toe of the new seawall. [3] Reily is the applicant for the permit. Reily owns approximately 17.74 acres of property along Indian River Drive in Jensen Beach, just north of the Jensen Beach Causeway. The Reily property extends from the Indian River on the east to Skyline Drive on the west. Indian River Drive runs north and south through the east side of the property. The Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive is undeveloped except for an existing restaurant, Dena’s, which is on the southern end of the property. There is an existing “RV park” on the Reily property to the west of Indian River Drive. The project will be located to the east of Indian River Drive. That portion of the Reily property is approximately one acre in size, and is only 149 feet wide at its widest point. The property is 24 feet wide at its narrowest point, and more than half of the property is less than 68 feet wide. Petitioners live in single-family homes to the west of the Reily property. Each of their homes is within 300 feet of the Reily property to the west of Indian River Drive, but more than a quarter of a mile from the property on which the permitted activities will be located. Petitioner Anthony Parkinson sometimes drives by the property where the permitted activities will be located when he takes his daughter to school; he has had breakfast at Dena’s several times; he looks at the property from the causeway; and, on at least one occasion, he and his daughter looked at vegetation in the water adjacent to the Reily property for a school project. Mr. Parkinson testified that the project will negatively affect his quality of life because he “came to Jensen Beach because of the natural shoreline and the protection that it afforded to residents in terms of natural beauty” and that, in his view, the project “just adds to the incredible bulk that we have here in the property in terms of building in our natural shoreline.” Petitioner Michael Cilurso drives by the property where the permitted activities will be located on a fairly regular basis. He goes onto the property “occasionally” to “look around.” He has waded in the water adjacent to the property and has seen blue crabs, small fish, and underwater vegetation. Mr. Cilurso testified that the project will affect him in two ways: first, he will no longer be able to “go from the road and just walk down and wade around in [the river] and enjoy the natural resources;” and second, the proposed development of the overall Reily property will affect his “quality of life” because “the density [is] going to be more than what we thought would be a fit for our community.” Petitioner Thomas Fullman can see the Indian River from his house across the Reily property. He and his family have “spent time down at the causeway,” and they have “enjoyed the river immensely with all of its amenities” over the years. He is concerned that the project will affect his “quality of life” and “have effects on the environment and aquatic preserve [that he and his family] have learned to appreciate.” The Permit (1) Generally The permit authorizes the construction of an 85-foot- long seawall and a 395-foot-long retaining wall on the Reily property and the placement of riprap on the sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the seawall. The seawall will be located on the mean high water line (MHWL). The riprap will be placed adjacent to the seawall, below the MHWL, and will consist of unconsolidated boulders, rocks, or clean concrete rubble with a diameter of 12 to 36 inches. The retaining wall will be located five feet landward of the MHWL, except in areas where there are mangroves landward of the MHWL. In those areas, the retaining wall will be located "landward of the mangroves". The permit does not require the retaining wall to be any particular distance landward of the mangroves or even outside of the mangrove canopy. The drawings attached to the permit show the retaining wall located under the mangrove canopy. The permit does not authorize any mangrove trimming. The areas landward of the seawall and retaining wall will be backfilled to the level of Indian River Drive. There will be swales and/or dry retention areas in the backfilled areas to capture storm water and/or direct it away from the river. The retaining wall will connect to an existing seawall on the Conchy Joe property immediately to the north of the Reily property. The seawall will connect to the approved, but not yet built seawall on the Dutcher property immediately to the south of the Reily property. The permit requires the use of erosion control devices and turbidity curtains during the construction of the walls in order to prevent violations of state water quality standards. (2) Permit Application and Review by the Department On or about June 23, 2005, Reily sought a determination from the Department that the seawall and retaining wall were not subject to the Department’s permitting jurisdiction. The project, as initially proposed, did not include the placement of riprap along the seawall. The Department informed Respondent in a letter dated October 11, 2005, that “the proposed seawall is within the Department’s jurisdiction.” The letter further stated that the Department was going to “begin processing [the] application as a standard general permit,” and it requested additional information from Reily regarding the project. The Department’s request for additional information (RAI) asked Reily to “justify the need for a seawall” and to “provide a detailed explanation” as to why the “use of vegetation and/or riprap is not feasible at the site” for shoreline stabilization. Reily responded as follows: Recent hurricanes have destroyed any vegetation that existed within the area of the proposed seawall. Shoreline has been lost and the DOT has had to backfill nearby upland areas and repair the roads due to significant erosion. The application is proposing to place riprap along the foot of the proposed seawall. There is no reason to believe that there will not be more storms in the near future and it is the applicants’ [sic] position that the seawall for this area is the only way to assure permanent shoreline stabilization and would be in the public’s best interest. The RAI also asked Reily to provide “a detailed statement describing the existing and proposed upland uses and activities.” (Emphasis in original). In response, Reily stated: “The existing upland use is an R.V. resort complex. The proposed use will remain the same.” The RAI also asked Reily to “provide details on the current condition of the shoreline at the site, including the location of mangroves and other wetland vegetation" and to "indicate if any impacts to these resources are proposed.” (Emphasis supplied). In response, Reily stated: “Please see plan view drawing sheet 2 of 4 that clearly shows that the proposed retaining wall will be located landward of the existing mangroves.” The sheet referenced in the response to the RAI does not show the location of wetland vegetation as requested by the Department. The referenced sheet is also inconsistent with other drawings submitted by Reily (e.g., sheet 3 of 4), which show that the proposed retaining wall will be located under the mangrove canopy, not landward of the existing mangroves. Reily’s response to the RAI was submitted on or about February 23, 2006. The Department gave notice of its intent to issue the permit on April 19, 2006. The permit included a number of general and specific conditions imposed by the Department. The permit states a petition challenging the issuance of the permit must be filed “within 14 days of publication of the notice or within 14 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first.” Notice of the Department’s intent to issue the permit was not published, and the record does not establish when Petitioners received written notice of the permit and the “notice of rights” contained therein. Mr. Cilurso acknowledged that he “found out about the DEP permit to Mr. Reily [approximately] six or eight months before [his] deposition in October [2006]” and then discussed it with the other Petitioners, but that testimony does not establish when the Petitioners received actual written notice of the permit. Petitioners’ challenge to the permit was filed with the Department on or about July 3, 2006. (3) The Related Pitchford’s Landing Project Contrary to the representation made by Reily to the Department during the permitting process, the evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that Reily is proposing to change the use of the upland property from an RV park to a residential development known as Pitchford’s Landing. A master site plan for the Pitchford’s Landing development was submitted to Martin County for approval in April 2006. The site plan (Pet. Ex. 10) shows extensive residential development to the west of Indian River Drive, including single- family lots and multi-story condominium buildings; construction of a sidewalk, bike path, pool, cabana, public pier, and riverwalk to the east of Indian River Drive; the refurbishment of Dena’s restaurant; and the "proposed seawall." Petitioners were aware that the plans for Pitchford’s Landing included a seawall by April 2006, but the evidence was not persuasive that they had received written notice of the Department’s intent to issue the permit at that time. The Pitchford’s Landing development will require changes to the land use designation of the Reily property in the Martin County Comprehensive Plan as well as zoning changes. Those local approvals had not been obtained as of the date of the final hearing. The plans for the Pitchford’s Landing development are being revised based, at least in part, on opposition from Petitioners and others involved in an “association” known as The Jensen Beach Group. Petitioners Cilurso and Fuller are active members of the group, and Petitioner Parkinson has also participated in the group’s activities. Bruce Jerner, one of Reily’s consultants, testified to his understanding that the pool, cabana, and riverwalk shown on the master site plan are being removed from the Pitchford’s Landing development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive and/or the other improvements on that property (including the hardened shoreline authorized by the permit) are being removed from the Pichford’s Landing develoment. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the proposed seawall, retaining wall, and riprap are part of the larger Pitchford’s Landing development. The walls were referred to on the master site plan for the development; they were depicted and discussed in an advertising brochure as an amenity of the development; and signs advertising Pitchford’s Landing are located on the Reily property to the east of Indian River Drive on which the seawall and retaining wall will be located. There is no evidence that the Pitchford’s Landing development has received a permit from SFWMD under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The master site plan for Pitchford’s Landing shows several “dry retention areas” to the west of Indian River Drive, and as noted above, there will be swales and/or dry retention areas in the backfilled areas behind the retaining wall and seawall to capture storm water and/or direct it away from the river. It cannot be inferred from that evidence alone, however, that the Pitchford’s Landing development will require permits from SFWMD under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Merits of the Project The Indian River in the vicinity of the Reily property is a Class III waterbody, an outstanding Florida water (OFW), and part of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve. The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve is one of three aquatic preserves that encompass the Indian River Lagoon system that extends from Vero Beach to Jupiter Inlet. The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve is 37 miles long and encompasses approximately 22,000 acres of surface water area. The entire Indian River Lagoon system is 49 miles long, with approximately 33,000 acres of surface water area. The Management Plan that was adopted for the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve in January 1985 described the Indian River Lagoon system, and explained its ecological importance as follows: The Indian River Lagoon area is a long, shallow lagoonal estuary important in this region for its value to recreational and commercial fishing, boating and prime residential development. The preserve is in a rapidly growing urban area affected by agriculture and residential drainage. The majority of the shoreline is mangrove fringed, with scattered development in single family residences and a few condominiums. The lagoon is bounded on the west by the Florida mainland and on the east by barrier islands. The Intracoastal Waterway runs the length of the lagoon, which is designated as a wilderness preserve. The estuary is an important home and nursery area for an extensive array of fish and wildlife. The major problems in the continued health of this area include the construction of major drainage networks that have increased the fresh water flow into the estuary, and the loss of wetland areas and water quality degradation associated with agricultural drainage and urban runoff. Additionally, the Intracoastal Waterway and the maintained inlets have changed the historical flushing and circulation within the lagoon system. The Management Plan explained that the “major objectives of the aquatic preserve management program are to manage the preserve to ensure the maintenance of an essentially natural condition, and to restore and enhance those conditions which are not in a natural condition.” The Management Plan recognizes “the rightful traditional uses of those near-shore sovereignty lands lying adjacent to upland properties,” and with respect to bulkheads, the Management Plan states: Bulkheads should be placed, when allowed, in such a way as to be the least destructive and disruptive to the vegetation and other resource factors in each area. Approved uses which do destruct or destroy resources on state-owned lands will require mitigation. The mitigation will include restoration by the applicant or other remedy which will compensate for the loss of the affected resource to the aquatic preserve. Most of the shoreline along the Reily property is a gently sloping sandy beach that has been previously disturbed, and is largely barren of vegetation. There are, however, areas along the shoreline where dense vegetation exists, including wetland vegetation and three stands of mature red and black mangroves. Birds, fish, and wildlife have been observed on and around the Reily property. However, there is no credible evidence that any listed species use the uplands or near-shore waters where the project will be located. The sovereignty submerged lands immediately adjacent to the Reily property on which the riprap will be placed are barren, sandy, and silty. There are seagrasses in the vicinity of the Reily property, but they are 30 to 50 feet from the shoreline. The seagrasses include Johnson’s seagrass, which is a listed species. There are no significant historical or archeological resources in the vicinity of the Reily property, according to the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. In 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jean made landfall in Martin County in the vicinity of the Reily property. The hurricanes washed out portions of Indian River Drive, including a portion of the road approximately one-half mile north of the Reily property. After the hurricanes, Martin County considered placing bulkhead along the entire length of Indian River Drive to provide shoreline stabilization and to prevent further damage to the road in major storm events. The county did not pursue the plan because it determined that it was not financially feasible. The portion of Indian River Drive along the Reily property did not wash out during the 2004 hurricanes. Nevertheless, on November 4, 2004, because of concerns for the stability of the shoreline along the Reily property, the Department issued an Emergency Field Authorization to the prior owner of the property allowing the installation of 160 linear feet of riprap along the shoreline. The riprip authorized by the Emergency Field Authorization was to be placed considerably further landward than the structures authorized by the permit at issue in this case. The record does not reflect why the riprap was not installed. The evidence was not persuasive that the Reily property has experienced significant erosion or that the project is necessary to protect Indian River Drive or the upland property from erosion. The project will, however, have those beneficial effects. No formal wetland delineation was done in the areas landward of the MHWL or the areas that will be backfilled behind the proposed seawall and retaining wall and, as noted above, Reily did not identify the location of wetland vegetation and any impacts to such vegetation in response to the RAI. Mr. Jerner testified that, in his opinion, there are no wetlands landward of the MHWL in the area of the seawall, and that any wetlands in the area of the retaining wall are waterward of that wall, which will be at least five feet landward of the MHWL. The Department’s witness, Jennifer Smith, testified that it was her understanding that the wetlands did not extend into the areas behind the seawall or retaining walls, but she acknowledged that she did not ground-truth the wetland boundaries and that wetland vegetation appeared to extend into areas that will be backfilled. Petitioners’ expert, James Egan, testified that the wetlands likely extended into areas that will be backfilled based upon the topography of the shoreline and the wetland vegetation that he observed, but he made no effort to delineate the extent of the wetlands in those areas and he testified that he would defer to the Department's wetland delineation if one had been done. The Department’s wetland delineation rules in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-340 contain a detailed quantitative methodology to be used in making formal wetland boundary delineations. That methodology is to be used only where the wetland boundaries cannot be delineated through a visual on-site inspection (with particular attention to the vegetative communities and soil conditions) or aerial photointerpretation in combination with ground truthing. Thus, the Department’s failure to do a formal wetland delineation (with soil sampling, etc.) in the project area was not per se inappropriate, as Mr. Egan seemed to suggest. That said, the more persuasive evidence fails to establish that Reily made an appropriate effort to delineate the landward extent of the wetlands in the project area. No delineation of the wetland areas was provided in response to the RAI, and Ms. Smith’s testimony raises more questions than it answers regarding the correctness of Mr. Jerner’s conclusory opinion that the wetland boundary is waterward of the retaining wall. Without an appropriate delineation of the wetland boundaries, it cannot be determined with certainty whether or not there are wetlands in the areas that will be backfilled. The evidence establishes there may be wetlands in those areas; and if there are, the impacts to those wetlands have not been assessed or mitigated. Riprap is a better method of shoreline stabilization than a vertical seawall without riprap. The riprap helps to prevent shoaling by absorbing wave energy, and it also provides habitat for benthic organisms, crustaceans, and small fish. Native vegetation provides these same benefits, and all of the experts agreed that it is the best method of shoreline stabilization from an environmental standpoint. The use of native vegetation to provide shoreline stabilization along the Reily property is not a reasonable alternative under the circumstances. First, the shoreline has not experienced any significant vegetative recruitment since the 2004 hurricanes. Second, the property is not wide enough to accommodate the amount of vegetation that would be needed to stabilize the shoreline. Third, the properties immediately to the north and south of the Reily property are already (or soon will be) protected by seawalls and/or riprap, rather than native vegetation. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The evidence was not persuasive that the project will cause erosion or other impacts to the adjacent properties, particularly since the adjacent properties have, or soon will have hardened shorelines. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and, to the contrary, the riprap will provide a benefit to fish and wildlife by providing shelter and habitat for benthic organisms, crustaceans, and small fish. The project will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. The only listed species shown to exist in the vicinity of the project, Johnson’s seagrass, is 30 to 50 feet from the shoreline, which is too far away from the project to be affected even if, as suggested by Petitioners' experts, the impact of wave energy on the walls will cause increased turbidity and sedimentation. The project will not adversely impact the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the area. The waters in the vicinity of the project are not shellfish harvesting areas, and the riprap will provide beneficial habitat for small marine life. The project will not adversely affect navigation. The riprap will extend only four feet into the Indian River in an area of shallow water far from the channel of the river. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect water quality in the area. The evidence was not persuasive that wave energy will routinely impact the retaining wall to an extent that will cause increased turbidity or sedimentation in the surrounding waters, and all of the experts agreed that the riprap will help to prevent this from occurring along the seawall. Moreover, the swales and/or dry retention areas behind the seawall and retaining wall will help to filter storm water runoff from Indian River Drive and the adjacent upland properties, which may enhance the water quality in the vicinity of the project. The project will not result in any adverse secondary or cumulative impacts to the water resources. The adjacent properties already have hardened shorelines. The permit conditions include adequate safeguards (e.g., turbidity curtains and erosion control devices) to protect the water resources in the aquatic preserve during construction of the project. Any impact (either positive or negative) of the project on the aquatic preserve and the Indian River Lagoon system as a whole will be de minimus in light of size of the system in comparison to the small size of the project and its location between two hardened shorelines near a man-made causeway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing Petitioners’ challenge to the permit/authorization for a lack of standing, but if the Department determines that Petitioners have standing, it should issue a final order denying permit/authorization No. 43-017751-003 absent an additional condition requiring an appropriate wetland delineation to show that the upland aspects of the project will occur outside of the mangrove canopy and any other wetland areas landward of the MHWL. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 12th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Recommended Order of Dismissal is whether the Petitioners have standing to challenge a Settlement Agreement in OGC File No. 07-0177 (the Settlement Agreement), entered into by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Respondents, Allied Universal Corporation (Allied) and Chem-Tex Supply Corporation (Chem-Tex), for the assessment and remediation of contamination at a bleach- manufacturing and chlorine-repackaging facility in St. Lucie County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Conservation Alliance is a Florida, not-for-profit corporation in good standing, incorporated in 1985, with its corporate offices currently located at 5608 Eagle Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. It has approximately 200 members, at least 100 of which reside in St. Lucie County. The Conservation Alliance was formed to “protect the water, soil, air, native flora and fauna, upon which all the earth?s creatures depend for survival.” Indian Riverkeeper is a Florida, not-for-profit corporation in good standing, incorporated in 1999, with its corporate offices currently located at 1182 Southeast Mendavia Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida. It has approximately 150 members. The parties agreed, by stipulation, that Indian Riverkeeper has 25 or more members that live in St. Lucie County. Indian Riverkeeper was formed “to enforce local, state and federal environmental laws through citizen suits, [and] scientific and educational programs to increase awareness of citizens? standing to compel government to enforce laws to protect the environment.” The DEP is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction to control and prohibit pollution of air and water, pursuant to chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Pursuant to that authority, the DEP took the enforcement action that culminated in the entry of the Settlement Agreement that is the subject of this proceeding. Allied owns and operates the Facility, and is responsible for the remediation of contamination resulting from activities at the Facility. Chem-Tex owns the real property on which the Facility is located. Entry of the Settlement Agreement On June 21, 2010, the DEP, Allied, and Chem-Tex entered into the Settlement Agreement that is the subject of this proceeding. The Settlement Agreement required Allied and Chem- Tex to pay a monetary penalty to the DEP, and to identify, prevent, and remediate contamination on the Facility. The Settlement Agreement required publication of a notice of the Settlement Agreement, which provided that persons whose substantial interests are or will be affected could, within 45 days of the date of publication, petition for a hearing to challenge the proposed Settlement Agreement. The notice was published on June 28, 2010. Thus, the last date for filing a timely petition was August 12, 2010. On August 12, 2010, Petitioners electronically filed their Petition with the DEP. Allegations of Standing Petitioners alleged standing to challenge the Settlement Agreement based on the following, as set forth in the Petition: The Conservation Alliance is a conservation group based in Fort Pierce, Florida, organized for the purpose of protection of the State?s natural resources, including drinking water, and the rivers and other waters in St. Lucie County. Indian Riverkeeper is a citizen?s group, organized for the purpose of protecting and restoring the State?s natural resources within St. Lucie County. Members of both the Conservation Alliance and Indian Riverkeeper own real property within St. Lucie County. Substantial amounts of hazardous waste have contaminated the Facility, which has caused significant environmental harm to the groundwater underlying the site and resulted in off-site surface water discharges. Contamination is spreading to adjacent properties which pump groundwater for potable water supply and agricultural irrigation purposes. St. Lucie County has proposed a major drinking water wellfield within one-quarter mile of the Facility, which use is endangered by the existing groundwater contamination. Petitioners have a substantial interest in ensuring that Allied and Chem-Tex comply with requirements established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The DEP has executed a Settlement Agreement that will become valid and destroy the DEP?s right to seek additional penalties and enforcement relating to Allied?s violations. Allied?s past violations have created substantial plumes of contaminants in the groundwater system underlying its property, which if not remediated may migrate off-site and contaminate deeper zones of the surficial aquifer system. Standing -- Effects of Contamination Petitioners alleged that deficiencies in the Settlement Agreement may affect their substantial interests due to the effects of the contamination on the interests of their members, who use the potable water and other resources affected by the contamination. The only testimony offered at the hearing as to the use of the lands in the vicinity of the Facility was offered by Anthony Brady, the current president of the Conservation Alliance, who knew of no members of the Conservation Alliance that used any lands within five miles of the Facility. There was no testimony or other evidence offered regarding the use of lands in the vicinity of the Facility by any member of Indian Riverkeeper. As to the allegations that deficiencies in the Settlement Agreement would affect “potable water and irrigation wells located in the immediate vicinity of the facility,” there was no evidence that any member of the Conservation Alliance or Indian Riverkeeper received service from those wells. Mr. Brady and Elaine Souza receive water service from unidentified public water supply sources in St. Lucie County. Kevin Stinnette receives water from a source other than the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. There was no allegation or evidence that the sources of their water were threatened by the contamination -- regardless of whether any such threat could be proven on the merits. There was no competent, substantial, non-hearsay evidence as to a particular source of potable water for any member of either the Conservation Alliance or Indian Riverkeeper that would “connect the dots” between the general allegations of groundwater contamination at the Facility, and the potable water supply of any member. For example, Petitioners alleged that their members own property in St. Lucie County, and that contamination is spreading from the Facility to adjacent properties which pump groundwater for potable water supply and agricultural irrigation purposes and, that if not remediated, such contamination may impact deeper zones of the surficial aquifer system and affect potable water and irrigation wells in the vicinity of the Facility. However, Petitioners utterly failed to prove that any of their members use, own, or have any interest in the adjacent properties that are in jeopardy of being contaminated, or that they are served by any of the potable water or irrigation wells alleged to be threatened by the contamination. The undersigned -- having accepted the allegations in the Petition of adverse effects of the contamination at the Facility and the deficiencies of the Settlement Agreement, having accepted and applied the testimony and evidence taken at the hearing, and without going to the merits of the Settlement Agreement -- is unable to find, based on the record of this proceeding, that Petitioners? substantial rights could be affected by the Settlement Agreement. Thus, Petitioners failed to produce the quantum of admissible, non-hearsay evidence necessary to demonstrate that they or their members will suffer an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle them to a hearing to challenge the Settlement Agreement. Standing -- Effects on Recreational Use In addition to the foregoing, Petitioners assert in their Proposed Recommended Order that “[a] substantial number of [their] members use, recreate, and protect the waters of St. Lucie County,” and that those members could be adversely affected by exposure to contamination due to the proximity of the Facility “to nearby navigable water bodies, fisheries, rivers and streams from which Conservation Alliance and Indian Riverkeeper members are provided with potable water and recreation.” The Conservation Alliance holds an Annual “Party in the Park” at the Fort Pierce Inlet State Park, and has monthly meetings at the Savannas State Preserve Education Center. There was no allegation or evidence as to how either of those locations were or could be affected by contamination from the Facility or by the Settlement Agreement. Indian Riverkeeper holds an annual “Mullet Run Festival” in Fort Pierce, and “other quarterly events that are sort of like our meetings” at locations in Fort Pierce and Jensen Beach, Florida. The venues for the Indian Riverkeeper events, beyond the cities in which they were held, were not identified. There was no allegation or evidence as to how those particular locations were or could be affected by contamination from the Facility or by the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Brady understood that one of Petitioners? members, George Jones, fishes in the C-24 canal. Mr. Brady has not personally fished in the C-24 canal for 25 years. Mr. Brady otherwise provided no evidence of the extent to which he or any members of the Conservation Alliance used or enjoyed the waters in or around St. Lucie County. Mr. Stinnette has recreated in various water bodies that are tributaries of the Indian River Lagoon system. He indicated that he had engaged in recreational activities in and on the waters of St. Lucie County with “dozens” of people over the past 16 years, some of whom were members of the Conservation Alliance or Indian Riverkeeper. There was no evidence offered as to how many of those persons were members of either of the Petitioners, as opposed to friends that have visited his house to fish off of the dock, or whether they were current members during the period relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Stinnette testified that the previously mentioned Mr. Jones told him that he kayaked in the waters of St. Lucie County. However, as to the recreational activities of other Conservation Alliance members, Mr. Stinnette testified that “I don't know, I don't keep up with their day-to-day activities to that extent.” Although Mr. Jones testified at the hearing, he provided no information as to the nature or extent of his recreational uses of the waters of St. Lucie County. The only evidence of Mr. Jones? recreational use of the waters of St. Lucie County is the hearsay testimony of Mr. Brady and Mr. Stinnette, which is not sufficient to support a finding of fact as to Mr. Jones? use. The only finding that can be made as to the recreational use of the waters of St. Lucie County by current members of the Conservation Alliance and Indian Riverkeeper is limited to a single member, Mr. Stinnette, who is a member of both organizations. Based thereon, Petitioners failed to prove that a substantial number of their members make any recreational or other use of the waters of St. Lucie County. Thus, Petitioners failed to produce the quantum of admissible, non- hearsay evidence necessary to demonstrate that they or their members will suffer an injury in fact to their substantial rights of use, recreation, and protection of the waters of St. Lucie County which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle them to a hearing to challenge the Settlement Agreement. Standing -- Other Issues Petitioners, and primarily Indian Riverkeeper, allege that their substantial interests are affected by the inadequacy of the penalty assessed in the Settlement Agreement, and by the purported preclusion of their right to “bring[] a citizen suit against Allied and Chem-Tex for their chemical spills . . . for violation of the Clean Water Act if it were not for the settlement negotiations taking place between Allied and the FDEP.” As to the issue of the inadequacy of the monetary penalty, the undersigned finds that the penalty to be assessed and paid by Respondents to the DEP has no effect on the substantial interests of Petitioners or their members. In that regard, the economic component of the Settlement Agreement does not result in any of Petitioner?s members being exposed to contaminants, or in any restriction on their recreational or other uses of the lands or waters of St. Lucie County. Therefore, the penalty amount does not result in an injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle Petitioners to a section 120.57 hearing. Cf. Dillard & Assocs. Consulting Eng'rs v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 893 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding no standing on the part of a DOT contractor to challenge an administrative penalty levied by the DEP against DOT, even when the penalty may, at some time in the future, be assessed against the contractor). As to the injury resulting from the alleged restriction on Petitioners? rights to bring a federal lawsuit under the Clean Water Act, there was no evidence of any current intent on the part of Petitioners to bring such a lawsuit, nor was there any evidence, beyond the bare assertion, of any such restriction or preclusion on bringing a suit. Thus, Petitioners failed to prove any injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle Petitioners to a section 120.57 hearing. Furthermore, the effect of agency action on the ability of a person to bring an independent action in another forum is not an injury of the type or nature that this proceeding is designed to protect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues presented in this matter concern the request by the Petitioner to be granted a management and storage of surface waters permit by Respondent. Respondent proposes to deny the permit based upon the perception that the activities contemplated by Petitioner: (1) are not consistent with the public interest as envisioned by Section 373.016, Florida Statutes, and 40C- 4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (2) are not a reasonable and beneficial activity, per Section 40C-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, alter the peak discharge rate of runoff from the proposed activity or the downstream peak stage or duration for the 1 in 10 year design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, (4) cause an increase in velocity or flood stage on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant for the design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (5) cause an increase in flow or stage such that it would adversely affect lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. 1/
Findings Of Fact A predecessor applicant had requested permission to construct and operate the water management system which is the subject of this controversy. The approximate acreage involved was 197 acres in Lake County, Florida. This acreage and requested activity was subject to the regulatory requirements of St. Johns River Water Management District. Clay Island Farms, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CIF, was substituted for the initial applicant and this matter has been litigated before the Division of Administrative Hearings on the continuing application of the Petitioner. The permit application number is 4- 8089. This application was considered with application number 4-8088, pertaining to property owned by A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Subsequently, the latter application shall be referred to as the Duda request for permit. Certain additional information was sought by Respondent from the applicants, CIF and Duda, in the permit review, by correspondence dated October 2, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 admitted into evidence. In particular, CIF was requested to prepare pre and post-development runoff rates in the 1 in 10, 1 in 25,and 1 in 100-year storms, to include stage-storage and stage-discharge rates for any and all retention facilities within the project design. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the engineering report by CIF which are CIF's responses to the request for information. The date of the engineering report is July 12, 1982. The CIF application, as originally envisioned, called for the construction of exterior and interior ditches to be placed around a dike of 71 feet MSL elevation. The dike would enclose a proposed farm operation of approximately 197 acres, should the permit be granted. Within that 197 acre plot, would be found numerous drainage ditches to include major ditches and minor arterial ditches. The purpose of those ditches found in the 197 acres would be to serve as a conveyance for rainfall runoff. The system of conveyance would be connected to an existing conveyance system already in place and related to farm operations of A. Duda and Sons. The runoff would be eventually placed in a retention pond and at times discharged from that retention pond or basin into Lake Apopka by means of gravity flow. The particulars of the development of the 197 acre plot and its service dike, canals, and ditches are more completely described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is the engineering report for the surface water management permit application. The CIF application was reviewed by the staff of the Respondent. Recommendation was made to deny the permit. Details of that denial may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. In the face of the denial, CIF requested an administrative hearing. This request was made on August 27, 1982, by petition for formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing to determine Petitioner's entitlement to the requested permit. St. Johns River Water Management District, in the person of its governing board, determined to refer this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceeding and the request for the assignment of a hearing officer was received by the Division on September 13, 1982, leading to the final hearing in this cause. During the course of the final hearing, the CIF permit application was modified in a fashion which reduced the amount of acreage sought for cultivation. Now, approximately 122 acres would be farmed per the amended proposal. A general depiction of the design of the project in its amended form may be found in the engineer's sheet, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20 admitted into evidence. When contrasted with the engineering drawings set out in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, the new design is essentially the same as contemplated in the original permit application, on a lesser scale. Other than dimensions, the basic concepts of the CIF operation would remain the same under the amended proposal. At present, Petitioner proposes to remove the vegetation which covers the subject 122 acre plot and to conduct a muck farming operation. That vegetation is mostly mixed hardwood with the primary species being red maple. The soil in this area is constituted of monteverde muck, which is conducive to the production of corn and carrots, the crops which Petitioner would plant, to prepare the land for the operation, the system of ditches dikes and canals described would be installed following the cleaning, draining, and leveling of the 122 acres. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence depicts land which has been cultivated and the subject 122 acres in its undisturbed state. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence shows the overall CIF area is outlined in red, except for its southerly extent, which carries a red and yellow line on the exhibit. This exhibit depicts Wolfshead Lake which is a small interior lake in the southeastern corner of the overall CIF property. The yellow line in the middle of the CIF property represents, the location of a former north-south canal. The westernmost north-south reach, which is shown with a red line, depicts a canal which runs north from Wolfshead Lake into the existing Duda system of canals and ditches. The Duda operation has attempted to plug that north-south canal on the western fringe to stop the flow from the area of Wolfshead Lake, but has been unsuccessful and the water still enters the Duda farm ditches and canals. In the 1940's and early 1950's, the CIF property had been partially developed for a cattle operation and truck farming. Those canals, as described before, were installed, together with the diagonal yellow line on Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which represents a canal that was built with an axis running northeast and southwest. In addition, there was a centrally placed east-west canal and a slough running from Wolfshead Lake in a southeasterly direction. The slough is still there, although water that might be diverted from the Wolfshead Lake area into the slough is flowing north in the westerly north-south canal at present. If the project were allowed, most of the water flowing in and around the Wolfshead Lake would be introduced into the slough and from there exit to Lake Apopka. The center north-south canal and the interior east-west canal, together with the diagonal canal, are not in operation at present. The center north-south-canal would become the approximate eastern boundary of the 122 acres with the western north-south canal representing the approximate western boundary of the 122 acre plot. The northern boundary of the CIF property is constituted of an east-west canal which is part of the present Duda system. This is the only one of the canals associated with the former farming operation on the CIF property which is part of any maintained system of conveyances presently in existence. Approximately 1,000 acres are being farmed by Duda and Sons in property north of the proposed project. The Duda permit application, 4-8088 as granted, is described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 which is a copy of the permit. This acreage is generally found to the northwest of the CIF plot, and would allow an additional 300 acres to be farmed in that muck area, on land which has been cleared for the most part and/or which has an elevation predominantly above 68.5 feet MSL. Eighty acres of the proposed Duda permit application was denied based upon the fact that it had not been cleared prior to the Duda permit application and in consideration of the amount of the 80 acre segment which lies below 68.5 feet MSL. The elevation 68.5 feet MSL represents the flood plain for the 1 in 10 year rainfall event for Lake Apopka. The area of the Duda permit is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 and outlined on that exhibit with lines of green and yellow at the southern end, green and yellow and red and yellow on its western flanks, red at the north end and by red on the east side, together with a Duda drainage ditch, which runs north from the terminus of the north-south drainage ditch coming from Wolfshead Lake and the east-west drainage ditch at the northern extent of the CIF property. Exhibit No. 4 was made prior to clearing operations depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and that letter exhibit is a more correct indication of the appearance of the new Duda permit property today. A green diagonal line running northwest and southeast intersecting with a line running east-west and a line running north-south depicts the approximate part of the 80 acres, which lies below 68.5 feet MSL, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Farm operations, in keeping with the authority of Permit No. 4-8088, have not commenced. If the CIF permit application is successful, the original 1,000 acres, approximately 300 acre area of the Duda permit and the 122 acres of CIF, would be tied in by a system of conveyance ditches or canals allowing the interchange and transport of water through and around the three farm areas. The existing retention pond would be expanded to accommodate the additional farm acreage. The Petitioner is willing to increase the present retention pond to a design capacity which would equal one acre of basin for each ten acres of farm land, at the place in time when all three elements of the muck farm operation were under way. This again pertains to the existing 1,000 acres, the approximately 300 acre recent Duda permit, and the 122 acres related to the CIF application. With the addition of the CIF acreage, when water in the ditches reached 67.1 feet MSL, this would cause the engagement of a 40,000 GPM pump allowing the ditch water influent into the retention pond. The pump automatically would shut off at any time the water level in the access ditches to the pond dropped below 61 feet MSL. The primary purpose of the retention pond is to make water available for irrigation of crops, in its present state, and as contemplated with the addition of the CIF project. The pond does and would detain farm water for a period of about a day allowing the settling out of certain nutrients which are in particulate form. The existing pond and in its expanded form does not and would not filter nutrients which have been dissolved and have become a part of the water column. At times of high incidence of rainfall, when the crops are inundated with water for a 48-hour period of time, the retention pond is now designed and as contemplated by the addition of the CIF farm land, would allow for the discharge of effluent into Lake Apopka through two discharge culverts. The discharge is by means of gravity through an adjustable riser system. The retention pond as presently designed and as contemplated in its expansion has established the height at which water would be released from the retention pond into Lake Apopka through the riser at 68 feet MSL. The occasion of high incidence of rainfall occurs during the normal rainy season in a given year. Discharge could also be expected in the 1 in 10 year, 24hour storm event. During that storm event or design, Lake Apopka would rise to a level of 68.54 feet MSL, a level which would correspond to the 10year flood plain. Whether in the pre or post-development phase of the 122 acres, waters from that acreage would be discharged during the course of the storm through culverts leading from the retention pond into Lake Apopka. This process would continue until the gravity flow stopped at the moment where the water level in the pond and the water level in Lake Apopka adjacent to the discharge culverts achieved equilibrium of elevation. At that point in time, the gravity flow or discharge from the retention basin would cease, there no longer being a positive gradient from the detention pond to Lake Apopka. There will be some amount of discharge in the 24-hour storm event through the culverts at the retention pond either in the pre or post-development phases of the project, because, at present, the western most north-south ditch, which is found at the western boundary of the CIF property, allows water to flow north into the present Duda ditch system, water which has fallen on the 122 acres in question. From the ditch system, that water finds its way into the retention pond and thus into the lake. The contemplated system to be installed with the 122 acres at build-out would also allow water from the 122 acres to go through a system of conveyances and to the retention pond and from there into Lake Apopka. Although considerable testimony was presented by both parties on the subject of comparing pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity, in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour storm design or event, neither party has satisfactorily proven the dimensions of the pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity. This determination is made having reviewed the testimony and the exhibits in support of that testimony. Notwithstanding a lack of proof of this differential with exactitude, it has been shown by the testimony and exhibits that the post- development peak discharge rate of runoff in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour design storm or event can be expected to exceed that of the pre-development rate. On the associated topic of the ability of the post-development design to accommodate the differential in peak discharge rate of runoff between pre- development and post-development, Petitioner has failed to establish this proof. The modeling that was done by the Petitioner, in an effort to depict the differential as 10 acre feet with an available capacity of attenuation approximating 26 acre feet within the system of ditches, is not convincing. Nor has petitioner shown that there is sufficient storage in the retention pond, in the course of the storm event. The data offered in support of Petitioner's position does not sufficiently address accommodation of the drainage from areas surrounding the 122 acres in question, which are not part of the Duda system; the amounts of water already found in the system of ditches and canals at the onset of the storm event; the amount of water located on the crops at the onset of the storm event, which would have to be removed; and the amount of water already found in the retention pond at the time of the storm event. During the 1 in 10 year 24-hour storm, the CIF 122 acres will be protected by the 71-foot MSL dike, in that the expected elevation of Lake Apopka would not exceed 68.54 feet MSL. The dike would also protect the 122 acres in the 25, 50, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events whose elevations are anticipated to be 68.98, 69.28, and 69.56 feet MSL, respectively. As a consequence, an increase in flood stage would occur on lands other than those controlled by CIF. The amount of increase in flood stage would be approximately .046 inches during the 1 in 10 year storm, and an increasingly greater amount for the larger storms. It was not established where the amount of water which could not be staged on the 122 acres would be brought to bear through the surface flow on the 31,000 acres of water which constitute Lake Apopka. Nonetheless, that water could be expected to increase the flood stage on lands other than those of the Applicant. Possibly the dikes protecting the muck farms on the northern side of Lake Apopka could be influenced by the .046 inches in elevation due to the forces associated with the 1 in 10 year storm event, such as winds and movement of the water in the lake. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that the design goal of the dikes in the area is 71 feet MSL. The dikes are constituted of muck and are susceptible to overtopping, erosion, or blowout. By history, there have bean dike failures in the northern end of Lake Apopka, and associated increases in stage or flood stage. This incremental increase in water level in the 1 in 10 year storm event, due to the CIF development, when considered in the context with the other influences of that storm event, could possibly be the determining incident leading to dike failure in the northern perimeter of Lake Apopka. However, given the history of dike failures, prior to this potential loss of the storage area on the applicant's property, it has not been shown that the proximate cause of dike failure in the 1 in 10 year storm could be expected to be the contribution of an additional .046 inches of water on the lake surface. Those failures existed prior to the potential for the addition of water and were the result of inadequate maintenance of a structure which demanded a better quality of attention. Nonetheless, the additional amount of water could be expected to exacerbate the extent of a dike breach in any 1 in 10 year storm event that occurred subsequent to the development of the CIF 122 acres. In summary, the likelihood that the increase in elevation of water caused by the loss of storage on the subject property will be the critical event that causes a dike failure is not accepted. A dike could breach because of the influence of the storm even itself, without regard for the incremental increases in water elevation due to loss of water storage on the CIF property. The poor condition of some dikes due to less than adequate design or maintenance, would promote that dike failure and be exacerbated to the extent of more water being introduced on that property through the incremental amount of increase due to loss of storage on the CIF property. The dike failure circumstance in and of itself would not be sufficient to deny the permit application; however, the applicant had the burden of addressing the possible problem of increases in stage or flood stage on other properties, not its own, which are not protected by dikes. This showing was not made by the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that an increase in stage or flood stage could be expected to occur on property fronting Lake Apopka, which property is not protected by any form of artificial barrier. The installation of the protective dike aground the 122 areas of the CIF property in the 1 in 10 year design storm and potentially at times of lesser rainfall events, could be expected to increase the stage or flood stage on lands unprotected by dikes and thereby adversely affect lands other than those controlled by the applicant. Most of the 122 acres and the property to the east of that development and a portion of the undeveloped 80 acres in the recent Duda permit would be inundated in the 1 in 10 year storm event, prior to development. This is true because the elevation of much of that property is approximately 67.5 foot MSL. During the 1 in 10 year storm event, it would store approximately one foot of water, as presently constituted. It could also be expected to be inundated on an average of approximately once in two years. Lake Apopka is a part of a controlled system of lakes known as the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Respondent regulates the water level in that chain of lakes by operation of a lock on the Apopka-Beauclair canal. The maximum desirable elevation of 67.5 feet MSL for Lake Apopka is a part of the regulation schedule found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. In the 1 in 10 year or better storm event, the Apopka-Beauclair system could not draw down the surface water at a rate faster than 27 days per foot, even assuming the lock was fully open to flow. Consequently, those properties that were suffering an, increase in flood stage on their surface could not expect to gain prompt relief through the regulation of waters in the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Lake Apopka is an hyper-eutrophic lake. Although it is classified as Class III water body (ambient water quality) within the meaning of Section 17- 3.161, Florida Administrative Code, it fails to match that classification in terms of its actual water quality. This is as a consequence of its highly eutrophic state, brought about by the age of the lake and the contributions of man. Some of the contributors to the eutrophication have been removed from the lake area and water quality has improved. Those facilities removed were sewage treatment and citrus processing plants around the Lake Apopka rim. The muck farms remain and the quality of the water in the retention basins or ponds when compared to the receiving waters of Lake Apopka is similar in nature. Consequently, the receiving waters are not enhanced in their water quality when the retention ponds discharge water into Lake Apopka. As stated before, the retention ponds do not have as their primary purpose the treatment of water. Any water quality improvement is a secondary function of the retention pond. The retention ponds do improve the water somewhat, as described, and are adequately sized to fulfill that partial cleansing. Whether the water quality in Lake Apopka would ever improve sufficiently to allow Lake Apopka to become a more diversified habitat for fish and wildlife is not certain, even if all contributing discharges of pollutants were curtailed, to include the discharge of water from the muck farms with its high nutrient loads. Nonetheless, Lake Apopka cannot accomplish the recovery if the effluent from the muck farms continues to be introduced into the lake with the present constituents found in the water. Out of concern for the water quality in Lake Apopka, officials of the University of Florida have conducted experiments on nutrient removal which they hoped would approximate the quality of removal accomplished by transitional vegetation and swamp. (The 122 acres at issue and the western and eastern adjoining property are constituted of these water treatment zones.) This experiment of nutrient removal through use of retention ponds calls for the retention of the muck farm water for a period of six days allowing settlement of particulates and for the vegetation within those experimental retention basins to uptake dissolved nutrients. Several types of vegetation are used to gain a better quality of nutrient uptake add the vegetation is harvested every six to eight weeks to improve that performance. The experiment has shown that the quality of water discharged from the ponds utilized by the University of Florida was comparable in its quality to the natural wetlands system water discharge. The natural wetlands discharge is of a better quality than the receiving waters. Unlike the university experiment, the pond contemplated by CIF primarily emphasizes detention for a shorter period of time than was used in the experiment and allows highly eutrophic water to be mixed with that quality of water already found in Lake Apopka. The only exception to that comment is that water flowing from Wolfshead Lake, which is south of the proposed 122 acres, is a high quality of water, and through the project as contemplated, this water would be directly introduced into Lake Apopka through a flow over a natural wetlands system. This is in opposition to the present situation where the water from Wolfshead Lake flows primarily to the north through an existing canal and is mixed with water from the muck farm and is, therefore, of the eutrophic character as opposed to the high quality character. The Duda permit, which was issued, would allow the introduction of water which is similar in character to the water of Lake Apopka, through the system of ditch conveyances, placement in the retention pond, and at times, flow to the lake. In its effect, the nutrient loading which occurs by introduction of waters from that new farm, would be similar to that proposed in the CIF project. The fact of this similarity does not prohibit the district from evaluating water quality matters on the occasion of the CIF permit decision. Should the 122 acres be converted from natural vegetation to a muck farm, wildlife and fish habitat would be adversely impacted. The habitat provided by the plot is in scarce supply and is essential to the maintenance of a diversified fish population. The hardwood swamp, which is part of and adjacent to the 122 acres of the CIF application, supports benthic invertebrates, which are a food source for game fish. The type of vegetation found in the lake, due to its eutrophic state, is plankton and one of the by- products of the reproduction of that plant through the process and respiration is the destruction of the fish population. This occurs in the summer months. The plankton has replaced the emergent and submergent vegetation which once covered as much as two-thirds of Lake Apopka and now represents .05 percent of the lake. As a consequence, game fish have diminished over a period of years with plankton feeding fish predominating. Consequently, the fish population is less diverse and the removal of the vegetation becomes a significant contributor to the imbalance in fish population.
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.
