The Issue This proceeding concerns Clarence E. Middlebrook's application #2-069- 0785AUSMV for a consumptive use permit for his project at Wekiva Falls Resort. Staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District have recommended approval of the application with certain specific limiting conditions. Petitioner, Middlebrooks, contends that the limitations placed on the approval are inappropriate and are so onerous as to preclude the continued use of his facility for public bathing. Petitioner, STS, claims that the present recreational use is not a reasonable beneficial use, interferes with existing legal users of water and is not in the public interest. STS urges limitations more restrictive than those proposed by the district staff. The basic issue for resolution, therefore, is what conditions should be placed on an approval of Middlebrook's application relating to recreational use. Approval of his application relating to an existing household consumptive use permit is not at issue. The parties have stipulated that STS has standing as a petitioner in this proceeding. In addition, in their prehearing statement filed on August 28, 1989, the parties have stipulated that the 14-inch and 28-inch standpipes on the Wekiva Falls Resort are governed by and subject to the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. and are legally considered to be wells for purposes of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact In their Prehearing Stipulation filed on August 28, 1989, the parties have agreed: Middlebrooks is a private individual who co- owns, along with his wife, and does business as the Wekiva Falls Resort in Lake County, Florida. STS is the owner of approximately 1,842 acres of land contiguous to the southern and western boundary of the Wekiva Falls Resort. The District, a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, is charged with the statutory responsibility of the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Consumptive Uses of Water, specifically Sections 373-219 and 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency affected in this proceeding. On September 4, 1985, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS to withdraw a maximum of .123 million gallons per day (MGD), i.e. 31.7 million gallons per year (MGY) of water for household type use from two standpipes, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Petitioner's property in Lake County, Florida. An administrative hearing was held regarding that application on November 6 and 7, 1986, and a final order was issued on May 14, 1987. The final order was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal which issued its opinion on July 7, 1988 (529 So.2d 1167). Permit No. 2-069-0785AUS was issued by the District as result of these proceedings. Middlebrooks returned the permit by mail to the District. On September 13, 1988, Middlebrooks submitted to Respondent a CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS to request approval of a maximum of .123 MGD (31.7 MGY) of water for household type use, which was revised on February 21, 1989, to request a maximum 14.26 MGD of water from the two standpipes, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Middlebrooks' property in Lake County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, District's staff gave notice of its intent to recommend approval with conditions of Petitioner's CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS. Both Middlebrooks' and STS' petitions for administrative hearing were timely filed with the District. In 1968, C.E. Middlebrooks purchased the 140 acre tract on which the wells are located. The property is bounded on the east by the Wekiva River, and on the west by Wekiva River Road. At the time of purchase the property was underdeveloped and overgrown. Shortly after purchase, Middlebrooks inspected the property and found an oval-shaped depression from which water was flowing. Such flow is common in this area along the corridor of the Wekiva basin. These surficial seeps, also called artesian flows, emanate from the surficial and intermediate aquifers. This, and other substantiative findings regarding the characteristics of the property, were made in the recommended order as adopted in the final order in case #86-2101, on May 13, 1987. Still, Petitioner insists that the water was from a natural spring. The only new evidence presented by Petitioner regarding the existence of a "spring" is the testimony of William Shell, who in the late 1930's used to fish with his father in the tributaries and streams off of the Wekiva River. William Shell claims that he and his father took a 10-foot canoe back into the property and he swam and fished in the "spring". Shell was imprecise as to the location of the spring and conceded that the site identified on a map attached to his statement could be as much as five miles off. His testimony as to the existence and location of a spring is unpersuasive in the face of the contrary historical evidence from aerial photographs, soils and geological survey maps, and the well driller's log describing the strata through which the 24-inch well was drilled. In undertaking the development of the property, Middlebrooks dug out the area in which the wells were ultimately drilled, utilizing a dragline to clear out what is now the existing stream bed between the oval-shaped depression and the area which is now the marina (or canoe basin). Extensive dredging was done to develop the marina at a point approximately 200 feet west of the Wekiva River, and additional dredging was done to connect the marina to the Wekiva River in order to have access by boat to the Wekiva River. The stream which now extends from the western boundary to the Wekiva River is called Canoe Creek. In order to maintain the swimming area and the section of Canoe Creek extending eastward from the swimming area to the Wekiva River, it is necessary for Middlebrooks to dredge the area every two to three years. In 1972 as a part of the development activities described above, Middlebrooks hired a well drilling contractor to drill a 14-inch well at a location within the oval-shaped depression. The well was drilled into the Floridan aquifer to a depth of 107 feet, and well casing 14 inches in diameter was driven to a depth of 58 feet. In 1973 Middlebrooks hired a second well drilling contractor to construct a second well within the oval-shaped depression slightly ease of the 14-inch well. The second well was drilled into the Floridan aquifer to a depth of 120 feet, and well casing 24 inches in diameter was driven to a depth of 80 feet. As part of his development activities, Middlebrooks constructed concrete towers around each of the wells and placed diffuser plates and planters on top of each to give the appearance of a waterfall. A concrete wall and sidewalk were constructed around the oval-shaped area. The water flowing from the wells discharges into the oval-shaped swimming area and then flows eastward through Canoe Creek until it reaches the Wekiva River. Middlebrooks' business, known as Wekiva Falls Resort, has a total of 789 campsites located on the northern and southern sides of the property. The swimming area, which extends from the western end of the concrete-enclosed oval- shaped area where the wells are located, to the wooden bridge which crosses Canoe Creek just west of the marina, is licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) as a public bathing facility. Middlebrooks also offers canoe rentals and paddleboat tours of the Wekiva River, each of which originate from the marina. Middlebrooks' present business operation centers around the water-based recreational opportunities provided by the water emanating from the wells. The facility employs approximately seventeen persons. Groundwater from the Floridan aquifer flows from the two wells under artesian pressure. Middlebrooks testified that he had calculated the discharge from the two wells to be 12.5 mgd and 12.72 mgd, although his records for the period from April 1986 through January 1989 showed average daily flow from the two wells to be 12.98 mgd. The prior final order entered in this matter determined average daily flow to be 12.47 mgd. Because these are artesian wells, flow varies depending on hydrologic conditions. The gate valve for the 24-inch well was frozen in the open position approximately 12 years ago and has since been encased in concrete making it inoperable. There is a diverter valve at water level, which, if opened, would increase the flow volume from the well, but which has no control over the amount of water flowing through the top of the well. As the well is presently structured, water essentially free flows from the well; Middlebrooks can control flow from the 24-inch well only through manual insertion of a poppet valve which must be first hoisted to the top of the well with a crane and then mechanically inserted into the top of the well. The only time this device is used is when Middlebrooks shuts down the well in order to do dredging or other maintenance activities. Early in 1989, the concrete tower encasing the 14- inch well fell over and had to be removed from the swimming area. The well casing was cut off at pool level, removing the gate valve on it. Although flow increased from the 14- inch well as a result of shortening the length of the casing above ground, Middlebrooks mechanically inserted a poppet valve into the top of the remaining casing in order to restrict flow. Middlebrooks contends that, with the restrictor device which is inserted in the 14-inch well, flow is essentially the same as it was before the casing was cut down and the valve removed. In 1973, shortly after the 24-inch well was constructed, USGS did an analysis of the water coming from the well to determine chloride concentrations. Chloride concentrations were measured at that time to be 230 parts per million (ppm). Chloride concentration is a measure of salt content in the water. The benchmark figure for chloride concentration in water as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 250 pp. Water which exceeds 250 ppm in chloride is nonpotable. At the time these wells were drilled, the water was potable. At the base of the Floridan aquifer in the area in which Middlebrooks' property is located is a layer of seawater, extremely high in chloride concentrations, which became trapped when the ocean water which once covered Florida receded and dry land emerged. This water is called relic sea water and is necessarily very old water. Significant discharges through a well in this region can cause the interface between the fresh water in the Floridan aquifer and the relic sea water to move upward toward the cone of influence of the well and break. This is followed by turbulent mixing of relic sea water and fresh water and results in elevated chloride concentrations in the water discharged from the well. This water is sometimes referred to as connate water. Subsequent tests of the chloride concentrations in Middlebrooks' well have been done, both as part of a regional study done by the district and in preparation for this litigation. These test results show significant changes in the chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells. Samples taken by the district in March and October 1986 showed concentrations of 312 ppm in the 14-inch well and 296 ppm for the 24-inch well for March, and 300 ppm for each of the wells in October. The 14-inch well was sampled again by the district in March and April 1989 and showed levels of 335 ppm and 296 ppm respectively, and an April 1989 sample from the 24-inch well showed 317 ppm. Samples taken by Jammal and Associates on August 5, 1989, showed 280 ppm for the 14-inch well and 290 ppm for the 24-inch well. Averaged, these results show concentrations over the 1986-89 period of 304 ppm for the 14-inch well and 300 ppm for the 24-inch well. The changes observed from the 1973 test and the 1986- 89 tests cannot be attributed to seasonal variations. The only samples taken since 1974 from the wells which do not show significant changes in the chloride concentrations are samples which were collected by Middlebrooks himself. The validity of these results is less credible than the results outlined in the previous paragraph, given the expert testimony supporting the former results. Further, the results shown from the samples collected by Middlebrooks are questionable in light of the elevated levels of minerals (including chlorides) which were noted in the analysis of waters taken from Canoe Creek, through which the water coming from the wells flows to the Wekiva River. The water flowing from Canoe Creek is 17 times higher in chlorides than water in the Wekiva River. Chloride levels in the swimming pool area were measured by Dr. Harper at almost 300 ppm. Even Dr. Roessler, an expert called by Middlebrooks noted high levels of mineralization in the water flowing through Canoe Creek to the Wekiva River from the wells and agreed that reductions in flow from the wells would result in reduced chloride concentrations within Canoe Creek. The importance of the significant increase in chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells, as noted, is that the groundwater coming from those wells in no longer potable. Continued discharge from the wells at the current free flow level will aggravate the problem of increasing chloride levels in those wells and in the immediate vicinity of those wells. If no action is taken to address the upward movement of the saltwater-freshwater interface, there is a potential for transmittance of connate water to wells of adjacent landowners. Reduction in the flows from Middlebrooks' wells would stabilize the saltwater-freshwater interface beneath his wells. This could result in lower chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells, and at the very least, there would be no further aggravation of the problem. Section 10D-5.120, Florida Administrative Code, governs public bathing facilities such as Middlebrooks', and essentially has two water quality requirements. The first is a flow-through requirement which specifies that there must be minimum flow of water through the facility of 500 gallons per bather per 24 hours. The second requirement is that total coliforms must not exceed 1000 most probable number of coliform organisms (mpn) per 100 milliliters. Although Middlebrooks' HRS license for his public bathing facility does not limit the number of bathers who may use his facility, there is an existing injunction obtained against Middlebrooks by Lake County, Florida, which allows a maximum of 2500 persons on the entire premises per day. Middlebrooks has made no effort in the past, nor does he presently make any effort to determine how many patrons actually use the bathing facilities on a daily basis. As the prior final order noted "for all the record shows, he may have never had that many (the maximum) since his permit was issued". The only evidence of actual usage of the bathing facilities showed a maximum of 290 persons in the pool area on a summer weekend. Regardless of how few, if any, persons utilize the bathing area under present conditions, the same amount of water flows from the wells daily. The stream which extends from the western end of the swimming area to Wekiva River Road and then off site receives drainage during wet weather conditions from offsite areas. All of Canoe Creek including the portion west of the swimming area is essentially a catch basin for surface water drainage from Middlebrooks' property. Surface water drainage enters Canoe Creek through overland flow, through swales conveying stormwater to it, and through an assortment of stormwater drainpipes which drain parts of Middlebrooks' property as well as off-site areas. The water entering Canoe Creek from this surface water drainage is extremely high in total coliforms. There are no significant stormwater treatment facilities on the site. A concrete weir with a spillway separates the swimming area from Canoe Creek west of the swimming area. The water in Canoe Creek immediately west of the swimming area is extremely high in total coliforms. A sump pump has been installed just west of the weir which, under normal weather conditions, is capable of pumping enough of the water into a roadside swale, thereby diverting it around the swimming area, to prevent this high coliform water from overtopping the weir and flowing into the swimming area. However, under rainfall conditions, the pump will not prevent this drainage from spilling over the weir and Middlebrooks does not run the pump continuously. Water has also been observed spilling over the weir into the swimming area under normal conditions. The higher coliform water which is pumped into the roadside swale is reintroduced into the swimming area through a culvert pipe midway between the oval area, where the wells are located, and the marina. There is also an apparent influx of total coliforms through surficial seepage and other sources internal to Middlebrooks' property. One of these sources of coliforms could be the wastewater treatment plant operated by Middlebrooks on the property. Other than the part-time operation of the sump pump, which was installed for aesthetic reasons rather than water quality reasons, Middlebrooks has done nothing to control the numerous sources of total coliforms to his swimming area, nor does he propose any modifications to accomplish this in his application. Instead he has relied and proposes to continue to rely on the 12.5 mgd flow of water from his wells to dilute the total coliforms entering the swimming area in order to meet the HRS standards for water quality. Middlebrooks dismisses any alterations to the site to address these total coliforms sources as "impractical". To the contrary, it is practical, technologically feasible, and economically feasible to control the introduction of coliform to the swimming area and meet HRS standards by preventing introduction of coliforms rather than relying on massive amounts of groundwater to meet the standards through dilution. One means would be to operate a sump pump around the clock instead of only on a part-time bases. Installation of additional toilet facilities for campers would reduce the use of Canoe Creek and its vicinity as a toilet. More importantly, treatment facilities such as retention and detention areas to treat stormwater runoff before it enters Canoe Creek, as well as diverting the water around the oval part of the swimming area, would enable Middlebrooks to comply with HRS total coliforms standard without the necessity of utilizing 12.5 mgd of groundwater. Reducing the flow of water from Middlebrooks' wells in accordance with the recommendations contained in the District's staff report would not cause blowouts or any other adverse geological consequences on his property or elsewhere. As indicated earlier, this region is characterized by artesian flow, and there is the potential for increased discharges from springs or other discharge points within the vicinity of Middlebrooks' property if flow is reduced from his wells. Overall, the area should return to a more naturally balanced system such as existed before the wells were constructed. The flow which discharges presently through the wells produces enough water to supply the domestic needs of 90,000 people. Reduction in the discharge from the wells would make additional water available for use for other beneficial purposes within the area as the water which now discharges from Middlebrooks' wells could be withdrawn at other locations within the vicinity of Middlebrooks' property. Through properly spacing wells and limiting their depth, (skimming well fields) these other uses of water could occur without aggravating the existing problem with chloride concentrations. Middlebrooks and one of his employees described water upwelling within the swimming area on one occasion when flow was stopped from the wells. While this would not be unusual in an area characterized by artesian flow, it may also be an indication that well construction problems exist with either or both of the wells. Having the wells geophysically logged as is required in the permit conditions proposed by district staff, would reveal, among other things, whether the well is properly grouted and sealed. If the wells are not properly sealed contaminated connate water could be allowed to move upward and interchange with other water-bearing zones, resulting in chloride contamination in those zones as well. The aquatic and wetland habitat associated with Canoe Creek can be divided into three distinct segments: (1) the intermittent stream extending westward from the weir and spillway to Wekiva River Road (hereinafter "the intermittent stream"); (2) the swimming area which begins at the weir and extends to the bridge just west of the marina (hereinafter "the swimming area"); and (3) the marina which encompasses the dredged boat basin and that portion of Canoe Creek extending eastward from the marina. These three segments have varying importance as aquatic or wetland habitats and can be separately characterized according to the impacts which would be felt from a reduction in the flow of water from the wells as recommended by the district staff report. The intermittent stream is characterized by slow flowing or stagnant water. There are species indicative of a wetland system associated with the channel here, although the banks of the stream have been mowed and maintained. Aquatic and wetland dependent species do utilize this part of the stream; however, they are in less abundance than in other parts of Canoe Creek. Because the hydrology of this portion of the stream is not affected by the flow from the wells, there would be no impact on this area if flow from the wells is reduced. The swimming area, which consists entirely of hard sand, is devoid of biological activity as a result of the regular mechanical maintenance performed on it by Middlebrooks, leaving no vegetation in the channel. Although there are aquatic species which utilize primarily the oval-shaped part of the swimming area, many of these are exotic species. In any event, there would continue to be a flow of water to maintain that environment. The southern bank of Canoe Creek in the swimming area down to the water's edge has been cleared, sodded, and is maintained as a lawn. There are no wetland plant species in this area. There are trees along the northern bank of the stream in this area, and it is less disturbed than the southern bank; however, the understory has been removed. Overall, there would be minimal impact to the aquatic and wetland species within the creek itself, and no impact to plant species along the banks of the creek if flows are reduced in accordance with the District staff' s recommendation. The marina area and the creek eastward of it provide the most abundant and productive part of the creek for aquatic species. This portion of the creek is at the same grade as the Wekiva River and therefore is in equilibrium with the river. Water levels are controlled by the pulse of the river, rather than the flow from the wells, and will be unchanged by reduction of flow from the wells. Although there would be a reduction in the amount of water moving through this area, there would be little, if any, impact to the functions of this portion of the creek as an aquatic habitat if the reduction in flow recommended in the district staff report were accomplished. Viewed as a whole, Canoe Creek, because of the wells and the alterations made to the site by Middlebrooks, is an altered natural environment with an artificially created and maintained ecosystem. The primary natural feature associated with this property is the riverine forested wetlands which extend approximately 200 feet inland from the Wekiva River. This area lies within the floodplain of the river and is influenced by the rise and fall of the river. These wetlands would not be affected at all by reduction in flows from the wells. Middlebrooks has contended that the flow from his wells provides a benefit to the Wekiva River by improving water quality in the river. Extensive water quality data showing the quality of discharges from Canoe Creek, versus ambient conditions in the river both upstream and downstream of Canoe Creek, do not support this assertion. The flow from Canoe Creek does not reduce temperatures in the river nor does it provide a thermal refuge for fish. Dissolved oxygen levels in the water flowing out of Canoe Creek are virtually the same as in the Wekiva River upstream of the creek. Chloride concentrations in the Canoe Creek discharge are 17 times higher than in the river itself. Total coliforms are higher in the Canoe Creek discharge than in the river itself. Although there is a slight reduction in nutrients as a result of the Canoe Creek flow, this slight reduction has no impact in a fast moving system such as the Wekiva River. Significantly, the flow from Canoe Creek violates State Water Quality Standards for specific conductivity (an indicator of the level of mineralization.) The probable source of this violation is the mineralized water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells. Reduction in flows from the wells would not degrade water quality in the Wekiva River and would likely eliminate the source of a specific conductance water quality violation. The 12.5 million gallons per day of groundwater which flows through Middlebrooks' wells (as distinguished from the 31.7 million gallons per year that is used for household type use) is primarily used by him to enable him to charge visitors to swim in the water. Any other uses of the water are secondary. The absolute deadline for making application to the District for continuation of existing uses and thereby to be evaluated as an existing legal user was September 11, 1985. The first application filed by Middlebrooks for an allocation of water for a use other than household type use was filed on September 13, 1988, exactly three years after the deadline for the use to be classified as and evaluated as an existing use. No exemption was sought or claimed for the water supplying the swimming area prior to the September 11, 1985, deadline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the District Board approving the issuance of a consumptive use permit to C.E. Middlebrooks for the amounts and under the terms and conditions established in the District's Technical Staff Report dated March 24, 1989. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioners. FACTS PROPOSED BY PETITIONER MIDDLEBROOKS 1-8 Adopted in paragraph 1. 9-12 The existence of a prior "springs" was not proven by a preponderance of evidence and these findings are rejected, with the exception of the date of purchase, which is adopted in paragraph 2. 13 Rejected as unnecessary. 14-18 See 9-12, above. 19-36 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate to the facts found. 37 Adopted in paragraph 10. 38-43 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 44 Adopted in paragraph 10. 45-46 Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 47, 48 Adopted in part in paragraph 9. The extent of use was not established. Rejected, except as to the existence of the injunction, which is adopted in paragraph 20. This injunction was apparently the result of neighbors' concern over a proposed rock concert to be held at the site. Adopted in paragraph 19. 51-53 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 54, 55 Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 59-63 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 64-79 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 80-81 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 85-90 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (the "efficiency" of the bathing area). Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 94-99 Rejected as cumulative. These same facts are addressed above. 100-101 Adopted in part in paragraph 22. 102-168 Rejected as cumulative. These same facts are addressed above. 109-113 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 114 Rejected as cumulative 115-118 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. FACTS PROPOSED BY PETITIONER STS Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 11, conclusions of law. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 24 and 25. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 25. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 22 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19-22 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6506 Frank Matthews, Esquire Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6526 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to connect his canal to the Caloosahatchee River be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1976.
The Issue As reflected in the parties' prehearing stipulation filed on August 28, 1991, the issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) should approve South Brevard Water Authority's (SBWA) consumptive use permit (CUP) application. The SBWA is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of 18.8 million gallons (mgd) and a maximum daily rate of 21.4 mgd. The District proposes to grant the permit with specified conditions. Petitioners challenge the issuance of the permit, alleging that applicable requirements of Chapter 373, F.S. and Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. and other applicable law are not met. The standing of Petitioners, other than Osceola County, is at issue. Also at issue is whether the relevant criteria include consideration of the adequacy of existing sources of water, and the consideration of costs of utilizing existing sources versus the cost of the proposed new source of water.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant, South Brevard Water Authority (SBWA) was created by special act of the legislature, Chapter 83-375, Laws of Florida. Its principal office is located in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. Its general mission is described in Section 1, of Chapter 83-375, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 87-481, Laws of Florida: Section 1. It is hereby declared and determined by the Legislature that a regional water authority is the most responsive, efficient, and effective local government entity to secure, operate, and maintain an adequate, dependable, and safe water supply for the district and customers of the district. It is the intent of the Legislature that such regional water authority possess the full power and authority to implement, finance, and operate a single coordinated program of water supply transmission and distribution to meet the future quantity and quality needs of the district and for customers of the district. There is a paramount public need to develop a safe, reliable, and energy-efficient source of public water for the district residents and to contruct the wellfields, transmission lines, and other facilities necessary to supply such water. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD or District) is an agency created pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S. in charge of regulating consumptive uses of water in a 19-county area of the State of Florida, including all of Brevard and part of Osceola County. The geographical boundaries of the District are described in Section 373.069(2)(c), F.S. Osceola County is a political subdivision of the state, west of, and contiguous to, south Brevard County. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Deseret) is a Utah corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida. Deseret owns real property in Osceola County to the north and east of the proposed wellfield. Deseret possesses a valid consumptive use permit authorizing the withdrawal of water for this property. East Central Florida Services (ECFS) does not own land or possess a consumptive use permit (CUP). Its purpose is to take over the water management program for the Deseret property. It has applied to the Public Service Commission for certification. Notwithstanding the parties' stipulation that "Triple E Corporation" and "Triple N Corporation" own real property in Osceola County near the proposed wellfield (prehearing stipulation, filed 8/28/91, p. 5), no such corporations are registered in the State of Florida. The lands identified as Triple E and Triple N are owned by multiple parties through trusts, primarily managed by Maury L. Carter, one of the owners. Neither Triple E nor Triple N properties have CUP's. The properties are used for agricultural purposes and the Triple N property has a well and recreational camp. The Site of the Proposed Use The proposed wellfield is located on property owned by the SJRWMD, the Bull Creek Wildlife Management Area (BCWMA), located entirely in eastern Osceola County. The BCWMA is comprised of 22,206 acres within the drainage area of the St. Johns River. The northern third of the management area is drained by Crabgrass Creek, and the southern two-thirds is drained by Bull Creek. The easternmost boundary is located approximately one mile from the Brevard County boundary. Currently all 22,206 acres of the BCWMA are under lease to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, which agency manages the area as a public recreation facility for hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, camping and archeological studies. The sparsely populated area has historically been used for logging and cattle grazing. It was acquired for a detention area and it currently provides nonstructural flood protection. Its surface topography is relatively flat, with uplands and wetlands separated by only inches in vertical elevation. Upland communities include pine flatwoods, saw palmetto prairies, pine savannahs and sand oaks. Wetland communities include cypress domes, mixed shallow marshes, sawgrass marsh, wet prairies and transitional prairies. The BCWMA is classified as a "conservation area" in the District's current adopted Five Year Land Plan which summarizes the agency's land acquisition and management policies. A "conservation area" is defined as "...an area acquired for water resource conservation and protection in an environmentally-acceptable manner". The term includes water supply areas, including areas for public wellfield location. (Osceola Co. exhibit #33, p. 15) Facilities Associated with the Proposed Consumptive Use Although the precise siting of the wells has not been established, the wellfield will be located at the northern end of the BCWMA, east-west into a "panhandle" area, and extending south, for an inverted "L" shape. The wellfield will consist of 12 production wells in 2000 ft. intervals. Wells 1-9 will lie along an east-west axis adjacent to Crabgrass Creek, while wells 10-12 will lie along a north-south axis below well 9, the eastern-most well. The capacity of each well is designed at 3,000 gallons per minute or approximately 4.30 million gallons a day (mgd). Each well consists of 20" diameter casing pipe extending 700' below the ground surface. From there, an open hole for production will extend another 250 feet in depth. A small, 20 ft. by 30 ft., concrete building will enclose the motor and other equipment associated with each well, in order to eliminate vandalism and to baffle the noise. The wells will be sited to avoid jurisdictional wetlands. In addition to the production wells, monitoring wells will be constructed to comply with permit conditions. Because the water drawn from the proposed wellfield will exceed potable standards, reverse osmosis (RO) desalinization treatment is required. A below ground header pipeline will carry raw water from the wellfield to an RO treatment facility in Brevard County. The RO treatment facility will process 75 percent of water coming from the wellfield, 85 percent of which is recovered as finished water, and 15 percent of which is disposed of as brine by deep well injection. The 25 percent of raw water which bypasses the treatment process will be blended with the finished water to yield water which meets drinking water standards for chloride levels. The yield is anticipated to be 16.67 mgd on an average day and 18.9 mgd on a maximum day. However, the finished water yield could be higher if raw water quality permits greater blending and less reject water. On the finished water side, the water will need to be treated again to assure that it will be compatible with water from the City of Melbourne plant. Failure to balance the blended waters chemically could result in corrosion of pipes, leaching of pipes, discoloration, rusty water, and odorous water. A proper process, therefore, is essential and is highly sophisticated. From the treatment facility the water will travel in underground pipes, beneath the St. Johns River, beneath I-95 and east to the Melbourne distribution system. From there some water is anticipated to travel south to connect to the General Development Utilities (GDU) system. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Site For modelling purposes, the aquifer system in the region is represented by sequential layers of differing characteristics in the flow and movement of water. The SBWA model contains 6 layers; the Osceola model contains 7 layers. In both models, layer 1 corresponds to the surficial (water table) aquifer; layer 2 corresponds to the Hawthorn formation (the upper confirming layer); layer 3 is the Upper Floridan aquifer; layer 4 describes the 200 ft. thick portion of the Upper Floridan called the "production zone"; layer 5 in the SBWA model is approximately 450 ft. thick and is called a confining unit; Osceola's consultants consider this layer less permeable or semi-confirming; layer 6 is the lower Floridan; and layer 7 in the Osceola model is the bottom reaches of the lower Floridan. The surficial aquifer consists of sand and shell deposits and extends to a depth of approximately 100 feet below land surface. The surficial aquifer is capable of producing small to moderate amounts of water for domestic uses. The Hawthorn is an interbedded formation consisting of clay, limestone and phosphate. Due to its extremely low permeability, this layer restricts both the vertical and horizontal movement of water. The Hawthorn is thicker in Central Florida than in other portions of the state. At the BCWMA the thickness of the Hawthorn ranges from 240 feet in the area northwest of the management area to 80 feet in the southeastern portion of the management area. The upper Floridan Aquifer at the BCWMA, as characterized by the SBWA's consultant and based on site specific data, extends from the base of the Hawthorn to a depth of approximately 900 feet below land surface. That portion of the upper Floridan Aquifer between the bottom of the Hawthorn and 700 feet below land surface consists of fine grained limestone with relatively low permeability. This zone corresponds with layer 3 in the groundwater modeling done by the SBWA. The portion of the upper Floridan between the bottom of the Hawthorn and 700 feet below land surface is less capable of producing water than the portions below this level. That portion of the upper Floridan Aquifer between 700 feet and 900 feet of depth consists of hard dolomites. Dolomitic zones are the most productive zones of water within the Floridan in this part of the state because these formations contain solution fractures and cavities. This zone corresponds with layer 4 in the groundwater modeling done by the SBWA. Several researchers and modelers have suggested the existence of a zone, variously referred to as a semi-confining unit, a zone of lower permeability or a middle semi-confining unit, located between the upper and lower Floridan Aquifer. This area between 900 feet and 1350 feet below land surface consists largely of hard dolomites similar in nature to those in the zone immediately above it. This zone corresponds to layer 5 in the groundwater modeling done by SBWA. Previous regional modeling efforts have utilized model derived values to describe the middle semi-confining unit rather than site specific information showing the location, thickness or hydrogeological characteristics of the zone. Site specific data tends to confirm the lower permeability of this zone relative to the layers above and below it. Site specific data consists of a core sample, mineral content observed during the drilling of the test monitor well, and a Neumann-Witherspoon ratio analysis conducted during the aquifer performance test. The area between 1350 feet and 1450 feet below land surface also consists of dolomites but with greater permeability and greater transmissivity (the measure of an aquifer's ability to transmit water in a horizontal direction). This area corresponds to layer 6 in the groundwater modeling done by the SBWA. No site specific data exists beneath 1483 feet, representing the total depth of test well TM. Regional data does exist which characterizes the areas from 1500 feet below land surface to the bottom of the lower Floridan Aquifer as consisting of zones of varying lithology, and varying permeabilities. This zone which corresponds to layer 7 in the groundwater modeling done by Osceola County is not homogeneous or uniform over its entire thickness according to available regional data, consisting of geologic reports of deep wells in the east-central Florida area. All parties agree that in the area of the proposed wellfield, horizontal movement of water in the Floridan aquifer is from west, where the greatest recharge occurs along the Lake Wales Ridge, to east, where there is little or no recharge. Water quality in the upper Floridan as measured by chloride concentrations deteriorates as one moves from west to east. The Floridan aquifer beneath the BCWMA represents a transition zone between the recharge area to the west and high saline formation waters in the east. The dominant geochemical components in water beneath the BCWMA are biocarbonates. Water quality, as measured by chloride concentrations, also deteriorates with depth. Chloride concentrations, based on data derived from the drilling of well TM at the BCWMA, increase gradually from 306 milligrams per liter (mgl) at 410 feet, to 658 mgl at 1473 feet below land surface. Chloride concentrations increase abruptly to 1980 mgl in well TM at 1483 feet of depth. Evidence is inconclusive as to whether all of the proposed production wells will draw water exceeding 250 mgl in chloride concentrations. It is undisputed that most will, but chloride contours initially provided by SBWA's consultant indicate that the southernmost wells may produce water between 150 and 250 mgl. A comprehensive aquifer performance test (APT) was conducted at the BCWMA by the SBWA's consultant, Post, Buckley Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. (PBSJ). The test was designed by the staff of the SJRWMD in consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This test yielded data which enabled PBSJ to calculate several aquifer characteristics for use in the groundwater modeling which was later done by SBWA's modeling consultant, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). Eight wells were utilized in connection with the APT conducted at the BCWMA in January and February 1990. Three of the wells were dual zone monitoring wells capable of monitoring events in two different geologic units simultaneously. Three wells, including the test production well (TP) were open to the interval between 700 and 900 feet below land surface which was identified by the SBWA as the production zone. Typically APT's are run for 12 to 72 hours in Florida. Well TP was pumped for approximately 10 days at a rate equivalent to that expected during actual production while observations were made of water levels in all wells, including three off-site wells (the Holopaw test well, the Kempfer well and the Bruner well). All of the information the SBWA needed from the APT was obtained in the first hours of the test. Water levels in the area monitored during the APT ceased dropping due to pumpage within 1 hour after the pumping started. Three different analytical models were used to calculate a transmissivity value for the production zone, utilizing data derived during the APT. The result showed transmissivity in this zone to be approximately 2 million gallons per foot per day. This is a very high transmissivity value indicating a comparatively prolific aquifer, capable of producing the volumes of water requested in the application. As transmissivity increases, the cone of depression associated with pumpage tends to flatten out and be less steep. The cone of depression extends further out, creating a wider area of drawdown. Hydraulic conductivity is the measure of an aquifer's resistance to flow either in a vertical (KV) or horizontal (KH) direction. Two methods were used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the Hawthon Formation by PBSJ: laboratory analysis of a core sample taken from this unit, and a bail test (measuring an increase in water level over time) conducted on a well on site by the SJRWMD. Two different methods were used by PBSJ to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of layer 5: laboratory analysis of a core sample taken from that zone, and the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio analysis method. Porosity is the void space in porous media through which transport of particles, such as chlorides, can occur. Effective porosity has an impact on the ability of saline or dense water to move upward from depth toward a pumping well. The lower the effective porosity within an aquifer, the greater the potential for upconing of saline water within that aquifer. Effective porosity for layers 4 and 5 was calculated using two different methods, those being laboratory analysis of core samples taken from these zones, and analysis of acoustic logs generated during the APT. Each of these methods is accepted in the field of hydrogeology. Anticipated Impacts to Groundwater Levels and Flows as a Result of the Proposed Consumptive Use A numeric groundwater flow model is a computer code representing the groundwater flow process. Both SBWA and Osceola used numeric groundwater flow models developed by their consultants to predict and simulate the impacts associated with withdrawals proposed in the application. The SBWA used a finite difference model called INTERSAT for its simulations. INTERSAT is a widely used and accepted groundwater flow model. The model was run by ESE for the SBWA in the impact or drawdown mode. Drawdown or impact models simulate changes in water levels in response to a stress such as a pumping well. Drawdown models are an accepted and frequently used method to evaluate wellfield stress, particularly in association with a CUP application. ESE and PBSJ utilized several analytical models to first determine and later to verify the area to which the boundaries of their model would extend. The radius of influence of a well or wellfield is the distance from the center of pumpage extending out to where drawdowns caused by that pumpage reach zero. The boundary for a numeric groundwater model should be set at, or beyond, the radius of influence of the pumpage being simulated by the model. Based on the analytical models run by ESE and PBSJ the radius of influence of the wellfield proposed in the application is 43,000 to 45,000 feet. The approximate distances of the boundaries set in INTERSAT model from well TP were 50,000 feet to the east, 40,000 feet to the west, 40,000 feet to the north and 50,000 feet to the south. The INTERSAT model covers a total area of 320 square miles. This size falls somewhere between a regional model and a local model, and is adequate in size to address the impacts associated with the proposed withdrawals. The vertical boundary of SBWA's model extends to 1450 feet below land surface and, as stated above, is divided into 6 layers. The 1450 feet depth generally coincides with the limits of site specific data generated during the APT. The six layers in the SBWA flow model coincide with the six distinct geologic units identified by PBSJ in their APT report. The site specific data generated by the APT was utilized, along with other regional modeling studies, to arrive at a set of "conservative" aquifer parameters to be utilized in the INTERSAT model. "Conservative" parameters for purposes of this application are those which would tend to overpredict drawdown in the surficial aquifer and the production zone, while allowing for more upconing of dense water from the bottom of the model. The selection of "conservative" aquifer parameters by SBWA involved taking site specific values, comparing them with the ranges of values reported in the other available regional models and selecting values which, while still within the range of reported values used in other studies, would tend to show greater impacts for the areas of primary concern than the site specific values. Every aquifer parameter utilized in SBWA's groundwater flow model falls within the range of values reported in at least one of the groundwater modeling studies previously done in this region. The size of the grids utilized in the SBWA model were 500 feet by 500 feet within the vicinity of the wellfield. Grid sizes expand as one moves toward the outer boundaries of the model. The fineness of the grids used by ESE, particularly in the wellfield area, allows for accurate representation and resolution of surface water features, impacts in the production zone and for evaluating the effects of saltwater upcoming in the transport model also done by ESE. Within the radius of influence of the proposed wellfield, there are no existing wells in layers 5 or 6. The ESE model simulations for 18.8 mgd pumpage predict a maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer (layer 1) of 0.14 feet centered primarily within the BCWMA. At a distance of 1 mile from the wellfield the impact drops to 0.12 feet. None of the existing legal users of water in layer 1 within the radius of influence of the proposed wellfield will suffer a ten percent or greater reduction in withdrawal capacity from their wells solely as a result of the proposed withdrawals, since 10 percent reduction would require at least 3 feet of drawdown. The ESE model simulations predict a maximum drawdown caused by the proposed pumpage of 4.5 feet in layer 3 centered along the alignment of wells and primarily within the BCWMA. At a distance of 2 miles, the drawdown drops to 2 feet. At the Brevard-Osceola County line the drawdown in layer 3 is approximately .5 feet. Petitioner Deseret's flowing wells are drilled in layer 3 and are located within the area where a drawdown of 1 foot is predicted in layer 3 by the ESE model. Deseret uses its property for a cow/calf ranching operation and has approximately 32,000 head of cows. Deseret uses 39 flowing wells east of state road 192 to irrigate pasture, water cattle and supply drinking water. Deseret possesses a valid CUP for a portion of the total flow capacity from those wells. Seasonally, the wells flow at different rates, but they are most relied upon in dry conditions when the natural flow would be decreased. It is unlikely that the proposed SBWA withdrawals will stop the flow of any of Deseret's wells; and it is unlikely that the flow will be reduced by more than 10 percent. Deseret and Osceola's consultants do predict a greater drawdown and opine that approximately 12 of Deseret's wells will cease flowing as a result of the SBWA withdraw As addressed below, the modelling by Petitioner's consultants, upon which those predictions are based, is less reliable than that of SBWA's consultants. If the effects are greater than predicted, mitigation in the form of installation of pumps is possible, albeit inconvenient and expensive. Mitigation would have to be provided by the applicant, SBWA. The drawdowns predicted by the ESE model for layer 4 are not significantly different from those for layer 3. It is anticipated that no legal user of water within the radius of influence of the proposed wellfield will suffer a 10 percent or greater reduction in withdrawal capacity for its wells, as a result of SBWA's proposed withdrawals. Petitioners' consultants, Hartman and Associates, (Hartman) modeled a significantly larger (4900 square miles) and deeper (3000 feet) area than did SBWA. The model makes its predictions based on one data point for every 49 square miles within the modeled area. Petitioners utilized much larger model grids in the wellfield area (2000 feet by 2000 feet) than did the SBWA. Grid of this size lacks the resolution necessary to evaluate wellfield impacts. Petitioners selected their aquifer parameters from another regional modeling study done in 1985 rather than using site specific data. Those parameters were then adjusted or calibrated until a match was obtained to a computer created potentiometric surface which was supposed to reflect the potentiometric surface for May 1990, an uncharacteristically dry period. The created potentiometric surface to which Hartman calibrated its model varies greatly from the potentiometric surface as reflected in the actual data points from which USGS derives its potentiometric surface maps. While no model is perfect, and actual data is preferable, in the absence of all the actual data that is needed, the ESE model is a more credible predictor of drawdowns. Anticipated Impacts to Groundwater Quality as a Result of the Proposed Consumptive Use Solute transport models are computer models designed to simulate the movement of mass, in this case -- chlorides -- through a groundwater flow system. These models are linked to, and are dependent on flow fields generated by groundwater flow models. In order to predict changes in water quality anticipated to occur as a result of its proposed withdrawals, SBWA's consultants used a solute transport model called HST3D. Developed by the USGS, this model is widely used and accepted. For simulations using the HST3D model, SBWA used the flow field and a portion of the grid generated by its INTERSAT groundwater flow model. The HST3D simulations run by ESE utilized a cross section of the INTERSAT model grid extending through row 26 of that grid, which is the row containing the line of 9 proposed wells running on an east-west axis. Use of a cross sectional grid is an appropriate method by which to examine salt water intrusion. Upconing, to the extent that it will occur as a result of the proposed pumpage, would be greatest within the cross section containing the 9 wells. The cross section extends two miles through the wellfield to the west. As chloride concentrations in water increase, the density of the water increases. Density can retard the degree of upconing when chloride concentrations are as low as 1000-2000 parts per million and becomes significant at 3000-5000 parts per million. Failure of a model to consider density effects, when appropriate, would tend to overstate upconing. HST3D does consider density effects. SBWA's consultant ran several simulations with the HST3D model to predict changes that would occur as a result of the proposed pumpage in chloride concentrations over 7, 14 and 30 year time periods. These simulations utilized the same aquifer parameters as the INTERSAT model together with the effective porosity values derived from site specific data. Assuming a starting chloride concentration of 1000 mgl at the bottom of layer 5, the measured concentration at that level in well TM on the BCWMA site, after 30 years of pumpage at 18.8 mgd, the chloride concentrations in layer 4 would increase by only 100 mgl. The simulations for 7 years of pumpage which is the duration of the proposed permit, show that the predicted increase in chloride levels would be substantially less than 100 mgl. Other HST3D simulations were run by SBWA for a pumpage rate of 35 mgd utilizing beginning chloride concentrations of 5,000 mgl and 10,000 mgl, respectively at the bottom of layers. The results did not show any significant changes in chloride concentrations in layer 4 over and above those shown when a lower starting chloride concentration was assumed. In a circumstance where, as here, the chloride concentrations in the zone from which water is proposed to be withdrawn exceeds secondary drinking water standards (250 mgl), the SJRWMD evaluates the existing legal water uses within the area that would be impacted by the proposed use. If it is determined that the increase in chloride concentrations caused by a proposed use would detrimentally affect other existing legal users or the applicant, only then is the increase deemed to be "significant". Within the layers of the aquifer which would experience increases in chloride concentrations as a result of the proposed withdrawal, layers 4, 5 and 6, no existing users of water would be detrimentally affected. Petitioner Deseret's closest wells to the proposed wellfield are in layer 3 where chloride levels will not be affected by the proposed wellfield within the 7 year duration of the proposed permit or even beyond that period. Further, the use Deseret makes of the water from the wells in closest proximity to the proposed wellfield, pasture irrigation, can tolerate significantly higher chloride concentrations than will exist even directly beneath the wellfield in level 4 after 30 years of pumping. Use of water for public supply purposes is considered by SJRWMD to be in the public interest. Utilization of the water beneath BCWMA for public supply purposes, even with some increase in chloride concentrations in the source of the water over the life of the permit, does not on balance detrimentally affect the public interest. Two different solute transport models were done by Petitioners' consultants, one a numeric model and the other an analytical model. The numeric model done by Hartman, RANDOMWALK, does not predict changes in chloride concentrations within an aquifer, but rather tracks movement of particles. RANDOMWALK does not account for density effects. The analytical model done by Prickett for the Petitioners relies on assumptions, many of which are not met in the aquifer system at BCWMA. Those assumptions relate to uniformity of the system, for example: porosity and permeabilities, and lack of regional gradients. The solute transport models utilized by the Petitioners are less reliable for predicting water quality changes resulting from the proposed pumpage than the model utilized by the SBWA. Salt water intrusion is a dramatic increase of chloride levels in an aquifer layer. The saline water encroachment which occurs from the wellfield stress will be in the lower confining unit. There will be limited degradation in the lower part of the production zone. The wellfield will not induce significant lateral intrusion from the east. There will not be any dramatic changes in chlorides. The movement of the chlorides is confined to the locality of the wellfield. Most of the movement is vertical and is of limited increase. The proposed Bull Creek withdrawals will not aggravate any currently existing salt water intrusion problems. The reject brine water from the RO treatment plant will be disposed of in deep injection wells in Brevard County. These injection wells would deposit the brine into a receiving body of water in the Oldsmar geologic formation. The brine reject will have a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of approximately 7,000 mgl. The receiving water into which the brine will be injected approximates sea water, with TDS concentrations in the range of 36,000 mgl. The receiving body will obviously not be further degraded. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Consumptive Use District staff, SBWA consultants and Osceola's consultants independently conducted onsite field investigations of the BCWMA to evaluate the vegetative communities and land uses which exist on site. Each consultant prepared a habitat map identifying the various vegetative communities found at the site. While relatively pristine, the BCWMA has been logged and grazed by cattle in the past. The impacts of man's activities have been remediated by ceasing the activity. There are few permanent incursions, such as roads, canals and buildings. The area is a very diverse landscape, with a mosaic of different types of plant communities. There are various upland and wetland habitats. The variety of wetlands are forested and non-forested, deep and shallow, open and closed. These wetlands perform important functions, including water storage and purification, aquifer recharge, flood control, and provision of food sources and habitat for wildlife, and they are "factories" for producing the materials needed by many higher organisms. The wetlands on site are structurally complex and are good habitat for macro- invertebrates and the fish and higher organisms that feed on them. A number of these wetlands are shallow, isolated wetlands. During periods of inundation, when the wetlands fill up with water and interconnect with the Bull Creek drainage system, the system exports various organisms to the wetlands. Fish that are live bearers move into isolated wetlands during periods of inundation, and they and their offspring become a source of food for birds. Fish species that lay eggs can withstand desiccation (total drying out) can survive the temporary drying of wetlands, but live bearers must repopulate during periods of inundation. The mixed wetland hardwoods on site contain a diversity of bugs, crawfish, mayflies, damsel flies, midges, and snails. Some of these are important food sources for higher organisms. The apple snail, for example, is an important food source for such birds as the limpkin and the endangered snail kite, and its eggs are food for crawfish and other organisms. The biological communities that exist in the wetlands and uplands at the site are determined by a number of factors, including the depth and duration of the hydroperiod, soils, climate, temperature, and availability of sunlight. These communities and their habitats will react to changes in light, water, temperature, and many other subtle effects, causing changes in plant diversity and structure, the areal extent of certain types of habitats and wetlands, and utilization by wildlife. Natural fluctuations in the hydroperiod also cause these changes, generally from the exterior edges of a wetland to the interior. The wetlands in the BCWMA have been able to withstand the natural drought and flood periods, or they wouldn't be there today. Periodic burning is essential to the health of ecosystems such as in the Bull Creek area. Fires reduce the prevalence of species less tolerant to fire, allow other species to strengthen their presence, return organic material to the soil, and reduce the fuel available for wild fires. Originally occurring naturally as a result of lightening strikes, prescribed burns are now undertaken by agencies such as the Division of Forestry and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to replicate the beneficial functions of natural periodic burning. Fire management is used as a land management technique at BCWMA and continued fire management at the BCWMA will maintain a natural ecological setting typical of Florida. Slight variations in elevation which mark the difference between wetlands and uplands can result in utilization of the areas by different animal communities. Where different types of plant communities meet, an "ecotone" is created. Where an ecotone exists, the "edge effect" of the competition between the two communities occurs. The result of the edge effect is higher plant and animal species diversity, which is extremely important to the natural community. Some animals make specific use of the ecotone for habitat and food resources. Many amphibians, frogs in particular, live in the ecotone. Some birds will not roost in the upland forests but will roost in the edge of the forest adjacent to wetlands. Wetlands in the BCWMA are connected to the remainder of the Bull Creek system through groundwater resources. Their biological and ecological communities are also connected as the same organisms move throughout the system. Isolated wetlands also exhibit a "moving edge" effect, where changes in the surface water and water table levels cause different plants, or plants at different levels of maturity, to exist in the wetland and its perimeter. This increases the productivity of the wetland by making it attractive to a wider variety of plant and animal species. If the expansion and contraction of isolated wetlands is reduced by lowered water levels, the smaller wetlands would exhibit a reduced edge effect, and the cumulative effect of this reduction over time would disrupt the functioning of the wetland-upland system. Isolated wetland systems are more sensitive to drawdowns in the surficial aquifer than connected wetland systems because the drainage area contributing water to the wetland system is smaller. Isolated herbaceous wetland communities are the most sensitive of the vegetative communities on BCWMA to drawdowns in the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer fluctuates naturally as much as five feet annually. Rainfall is the primary source of water for the surficial aquifer. Water levels in the surficial aquifer respond very quickly to rainfall events. Hydroperiods of the wetland systems in the BCWMA respond to rainfall and surficial aquifer levels. The wetland hydroperiods vary from year to year, and wetland ecosystems have adopted to those annual changes. But a groundwater withdrawal from the surficial aquifer in the Bull Creek area would cause a corresponding lowering of the surface water level, since the wetlands are not "perched", or separated from the aquifer by a confining layer. A drawdown would lower water levels throughout the hydroperiod, under both high water and low water conditions, with a more pronounced effect during the dry season and drought periods. Some of the over twenty threatened and endangered plant species present at Bull Creek grow in shallow, marginally wet areas. Changes in even a few inches of groundwater would cause these plant species to be retarded in growth, and their abundance would decrease or they would die out at the site. Many of the wetlands are shallow, broad, sloping areas, and groundwater elevation changes of just a few inches will cause changes in the areal extent of these wetlands. Even the .14 foot drawdown predicted by SBWA's modeling would affect shallow inundated or saturated systems by changing the moisture level at the surface, particularly by affecting the lowest water levels. Changes in the vegetative composition of wetlands will affect the macro-invertebrate characteristics of a site. For example, as water levels change, the density of the vegetation (in terms of number of plant stems per acre) can decrease, leaving fewer places for the macro-invertebrates to hide, and the populations of macro-invertebrates will decrease through predation. As food sources, habitat and breeding grounds decrease, those animal species that can relocate will attempt to do so. Relocation can adversely affect the survival of the species; for example, a wood stork unable to find a particular food upon which it is dependent at a particular interval in its life cycle may abandon its nest and its young. Animals that attempt to relocate may find that there is not a suitable similar habitat available, making their attempt to adjust to the change in their environment unsuccessful. The proposed use will not significantly affect the stages or vegetation of the upland communities at the BCWMA because they are not as dependent on saturation or inundation as a wetland community. Forested wetland systems, be they isolated or connected, will not be influenced by a drawdown of the magnitude predicted by SBWA for the surficial aquifer. Forested systems have deep root zones and the canopy provides shading to the strata below. Forested systems are able to tolerate natural changes in hydrology. The SBWA assessment does not offer any detailed cataloguing of the plant and animal communities on site, or a description of how the systems operate or interface with each other. It does not provide sufficient information to be able to assess the impacts of the proposed wellfield on these systems. There was insufficient information presented by the applicant to conclude that the environmental harm to be caused by operation of a wellfield at the BCWMA has been reduced to an acceptable level. The applicant relied on the fact that drawdowns in the surficial aquifer will be minimal, without fully considering the impact of those minimal drawdowns on a fragile wetland ecosystem during a dry period. Water Demand The SBWA was created by special act in 1983 as a dependent special district for the purpose of developing regional water supplies and transmission of water to water distribution systems. In its existence so far, its labors have been in the former, and none in the latter category. Efforts to develop a regional water supply have been frustrated by litigation, by reluctance of local public systems to give up their authority and by delays in pursuing and processing CUP applications, two of which are still pending, in addition to the instant application. The City of Melbourne's public water system provides water to Melbourne, Palm Bay and West Melbourne, and to some unincorporated areas surrounding Melbourne. It also supplies water to the area called south beaches, comprised of the Brevard County area south of Patrick Air Force Base, including Satellite Beach, Melbourne Beach, Indiatlantic and Indian Harbor Beach. The current water supply is Lake Washington, which is part of the chain of lakes on the St. Johns River. The city of Melbourne was granted a CUP on January 15, 1991, for withdrawals from Lake Washington, ranging from 27.15 million gallons maximum daily withdrawals in 1991 to 21.7 million gallons maximum daily withdrawals in 1998. In addition, Melbourne has planned a new facility and has the CUP to withdraw 8.13 million gallons a day from the Floridan Aquifer commencing in 1993. After reverse osmosis treatment, the groundwater withdrawal will yield 6.5 million gallons a day finished water, making up the difference from reduced withdrawals from Lake Washington. Approximately 56 potable water systems have been identified by SBWA in South Brevard, south of the Pineda Causeway. Almost all are small private systems. Besides Melbourne, the other major water supplier in the area is General Development Utilities (GDU), serving the City of Palm Bay. GDU's CUP expires in 1993 with an average daily withdrawal of 6.5 mgd and maximum daily withdrawal of 8.5 mgd. It has ample capacity until 1996, and beyond to the year 2000, if an additional Department of Environmental Regulation capacity rating is obtained. The total capacity of the two major existing facilities is approximately 30 mgd and total existing consumptive use quantities (including existing CUPs with expiration dates varying from 1993 to 1998) approach 40 mgd. The current SBWA water master plan assumes that existing sources need replacing. More specifically, SBWA, if this CUP is granted, seeks to replace Lake Washington as the primary source of water in the area with the groundwater obtained from the BCWMA wellfield. An agreement between the City of Melbourne and SBWA provides that the City will initially purchase 8 mgd, plus all future needs of water from the SBWA. This 8 mgd would be used by Melbourne prior to using its 6.5 mgd finished water from the RO facility, and the RO water would be used prior to withdrawals from Lake Washington. The agreement, dated January 9, 1991, acknowledges the need for, and specifically authorizes improvements to Melbourne's Lake Washington Water Treatment Plant, including the conversion of the existing high service pumping station to a low service pumping station with average daily capacity of 20 mgd and maximum capacity of 25 mgd. (SBWA Ex. 49) GDU is a private utility and currently is outside the jurisdiction of the SBWA. General Development Corporation is in receivership and the City of Palm Bay is negotiating for purchase of the utility. If the purchase is successful, the supply will become publicly owned and subject to the jurisdiction of the SBWA. The City of Palm Bay is not bound to purchase GDU at any price, and the requirement that it would shut down its newly purchased facility to receive water from SBWA is a disincentive to the acquisition. In the meantime, GDU has no incentive to reduce CUP capacity and devalue its facility. GDU's service has been uninterrupted and reliable. Contamination to the surface aquifer utilized by GDU has been successfully treated. Although septic tanks proliferate in Palm Bay, their location, as well as the presence of confining layers in the surficial aquifer, reduce the susceptibility of GDU wells to contamination from septic tanks. The applicant's concerns about unreliability and safety of Lake Washington as a continued water source are unsubstantiated by the weight of evidence in this proceeding. Surface water facilities have been used in Florida since before the turn of the century and no major facility has ever been off-line one day due to raw water contamination. Nor has any major Florida surface water plant ever been sabotaged. There is a greater chance in Florida of problems with pipeline failures, and the miles of pipes planned to transmit ground water from Bull Creek east to SBWA consumers increase the chances of those problems. Recently, the SJRWMD Upper Basin Project has significantly improved the water quality and quantity in Lake Washington through restoration of marshlands in the upper basin and capping flowing wells. Restored marsh areas will allow for additional removal of nutrients and provide an additional storage to the Lake Washington/Upper Basin system, significantly improving safe yield quantities. Comparisons of concentrations of raw water chlorides and total dissolved solids for the drought years of 1989 and 1990, show significant reductions for the latter time frame. Recent evaluations indicate that Lake Washington would be acceptable in terms of chlorides and TDS concentrations for a 35 mgd withdrawal, even during 50 and 100 year droughts. Water quality improvements to Lake Washington can be directly related to the Upper Basin project. Trihalomethanes are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. They are produced by the disinfection process of treating raw water with chlorines, and they are carcinogenic. A previously experienced problem at the Melbourne plant has been corrected with operational changes. As recently as 1988, an internal staff report by SJRWMD staff provided: Lake Washington has been a reliable source of public water supply since 1960 and can remain so in the future with the continuation of sound basin planning and watershed management by the St. John's river Water Management District. The quality of the raw water from Lake Washington is subject to annual and seasonal variations that make the treatment process more difficult, and the quality of the delivered water less consistent, than would be the case with a groundwater supply. A supplemental water source near Lake Washington would improve the quality of the water delivered to the users, would increase the total volume that could be taken from the lake in times of stress, and would provide a reliable alternative in case of emergency. The upper zone of the Floridan Aquifer within south Brevard County has the potential to supply a significant portion of the area's future water needs with existing low-pressure, reverse osmosis technology at a cost that is comparable to current supplies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the SBWA application for CUP be denied. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 91-1779, 91-1780, & 91-1781 The following constitute disposition of the findings of fact proposed by each party. Petitioner, Osceola County These findings have been adopted in full or in substantial part in the recommended order submitted herewith: 1-5, 7-8, 14, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30, 32, 35, 62-65, 73, 104, 113, 116-125, 127, 129-130, 132-138, 140, 154, 157-158, 164, 167-168, 183, 186, 189, 191-195, 197-200, 202-204, 209, 212. These findings are rejected as contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evidence: 37-38, 48, 51, 53, 56, 66, 79-81, 84-90, 92-94, 102-103, 105-107, 110-112, 115, 128, 171-172, 212(d), (f) and (g), 213-214. These findings are rejected as cumulative, unnecessary or irrelevant: 6, 9- 13, 15-20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 39-47, 49-50, 52, 54-55, 57-61, 67-72, 74- 78, 82-83, 91, 95-101, 108-109, 114, 126, 131, 139, 141-153, 155-156, 159-163, 165-166, 169-170, 173-182, 184-185, 190, 196, 201, 205-208, 210-211, 212(e), 215. Petitioners, Triple E, Triple N, East Central Florida Services, Inc., and Deseret These findings have been adopted in full or in substantial part in the recommended order submitted herewith: 1-6, 8-9, 16-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30-31, 50- 56, 59-60. These findings are rejected as contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evidence: 7, 12, 32, 34-37, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 58. These findings are rejected as cumulative, unnecessary or irrelevant: 10- 11, 13-15, 21, 26, 29, 33, 38-39, 41, 43, 45-47, 57, 61-63. Respondent, South Brevard Water Authority These findings have been adopted in full or in substantial part in the recommended order submitted herewith: 1-6, 9-11, 13, 16-24, 28, 30-34, 36, 38, 46-48, 61, 64, 70, 72-74, 90-91, 94-98, 105-108, 110-111, 113, 115-116, 121, 126-129, 133, 149, 152, 157, 169, 179, 181-190, 192-194. These findings are rejected as contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evidence: 41, 130-132, 156, 158, 167, 174, 177. These findings are rejected as cumulative, unnecessary or irrelevant: 7-8, 12, 14-15, 25-27, 29, 35, 37, 39-40, 42-45, 49-60, 62-63, 65-69, 71, 75-89, 92- 93, 100-104, 109, 112, 114, 117-120, 122-125, 134-148, 150-151, 153-155, 159- 166, 168, 170-173, 175-176, 178, 180, 191. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District These findings have been adopted in full or in substantial part in the recommended order submitted herewith: 1-8, 10-22, 24-36, 38-44, 47-62, 64-88, 90, 92-116, 118-122, 124-130, 132-142, 144-151, 159-160, 164, 166-167, 169, 171, 174-175, 177, 193-196, 198, 202, 206. These findings are rejected as contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evidence: 131 (the conclusion), 153-154, 156-157, 161-162, 197, 204, 207. These findings are rejected as cumulative, unnecessary or irrelevant: 9, 23, 37, 45-46, 63, 89, 91, 117, 123, 143, 150, 152, 155, 158, 163, 165, 168, 170, 172-173, 176, 178-192, 199-201, 203, 208-210. COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire BLAIN & CONE, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, FL 33602 Clifton A. McClelland, Esquire POTTER, McCLELLAND, MARKS & HEALY, P.A. Post Office Box 2523 Melbourne, FL 32902-2523 Wayne Flowers, Esquire Nancy B. Barnard, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Neal D. Bowen, County Attorney Osceola County Room 117 17 South Vernon Avenue Kissimmee, FL 32741 Carol Browner, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Pal-Mar is a water management district operating pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, in Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. Pal-Mar has proposed to construct a drainage system serving approximately 22,500 acres of land of which approximately 18,000 acres are located in Martin County. There are five (5) proposed phases of construction required to complete the drainage system. Four (4) of these phases, I, II, IV and V, are considered by Pal-Mar to constitute a closed system as defined in Section 373.403(6), Florida Statutes. There is no connection between phase III and the rest of the system. During mid 1976, Pal-Mar filed an application with SFWMD for a surface water management permit for Pal-Mar's water management plan for phase III. It was stated therein that Pal-Mar considered phases I, II, IV and V to be a closed system and exempt from the permitting requirement of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. At its regular monthly meeting of October 7, 1976, the governing board of SFWMD considered the status of phases I, II, IV and V of the Pal-Mar plan. A motion to declare phases I, II, IV and V not a closed system failed. No other motion was made concerning the system. At its annual landowners meeting of June 16, 1977, the president of Pal-Mar's Board of Supervisors indicated that Pal-Mar had received a "tentative declaration" that phases I, II, IV and V constitute a closed system. On September 2, 1977, Martin County initiated the instant proceeding. Phases I, II and V of the propose drainage system are separated from phase IV by State Road 711. The section of State Road 711 in Martin County is maintained by Martin County and Martin County owns a 200 foot easement for the State road. The southern portion of State Road 711 within the drainage system runs through Palm Beach County. The Jupiter Grade Road passes through the center of the proposed drainage system's reservoir in an east/west direction. Litigation is presently pending between Pal-Mar and Martin County as to the ownership of the Jupiter Grade Road. Pal-Mar has acquired no easements or other legal use of the Jupiter Grade Road from Martin County nor has Pal-Mar obtained from Martin County any form of easement or license to cross State Road 711 for purposes of implementing the drainage system. As part of its plan, Pal-Mar intends to acquire from either Martin County or Palm Beach County such control of or access to State Roads 711 and its appurtenant easement as is necessary to implement the drainage system plan. As to the Jupiter Grade, Pal-Mar intends to either provide a two part reservoir with containment levees to protect the Jupiter Grade, to seek requisite ownership or control of the Jupiter Grade from Martin County or to voluntarily relocate the Jupiter Grade as part of its proposed project. Finally, the project will require a joint levee east of phase IV, 500 feet north of State Road 706. Pal-Mar intends as part of its plan to obtain necessary easements for construction of the joint levee. The proposed system requires no water for filling, replenishing and maintaining its water level and indeed requires no water at all.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that South Florida Water Management District enter its declaratory statement declaring that the Pal-Mar Water Management District plan is a closed system as that term is defined in Section 373.403(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL R. N. McDONNELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1978.
The Issue The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, City of Cape Coral (City), was entitled to an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (Permit) that would allow removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock (Lock) and associated uplands, and installation of a 165-foot linear seawall in the South Spreader Waterway in Cape Coral, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of the Department's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in the Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. The City is a Florida municipality in Lee County. The City is the applicant for the Permit allowing the removal of the Lock and installation of a seawall (Project). The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The South Spreader Waterway is a perimeter canal separating the City's canal system from shoreline wetlands to the west and south, which run the length of Matlacha Pass to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at San Carlos Bay.1/ The Association is a Florida non-profit corporation that was created in 1981. The Association was created to safeguard the interests of its members. The Association has approximately 150 members who reside in Matlacha and Matlacha Isles, Florida. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of waters adjacent to and surrounding Matlacha. The Association's members were particularly interested in protecting the water quality of the surface waters in the area. Matlacha is an island community located to the northwest of Cape Coral, the South Spreader Waterway, and the Lock. Matlacha is located within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Matlacha Pass is classified as a Class II waterbody designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting, and is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-02.400(17)(b)36; 62-302.700(9)(h). Petitioner, Karl Deigert, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Deigert is the president of the Association. Mr. Deigert’s house in Matlacha is waterfront. He holds a captain’s license and has a business in which he gives sightseeing and ecological tours by boat of the waters around Matlacha. He fishes in the waters around his property and enjoys the current water quality in the area. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would have negative effects on water quality and would negatively impact the viability of his business and his enjoyment of the waters surrounding Matlacha. Petitioner, Melanie Hoff, is a resident and property owner in St. James City. St. James City is located to the southwest of Cape Coral. Ms. Hoff’s property is located within five nautical miles of the Lock. Ms. Hoff engages in various water sports and fishes in the waters around her property. She moved to the area, in part, for the favorable water quality. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality and her ability to use and enjoy waters in the area. Petitioner, Robert S. Zarranz, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Mr. Zarranz’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. He is an avid fisherman and boater. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that the quality of fishing in the area would decline as a result. Petitioner, Yolanda Olsen, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Olsen’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She enjoys watersports and birdwatching in the areas around her property. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Jessica Blanks, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Blanks’ house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Joseph Michael Hannon, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Hannon is a member of the Association. He enjoys boating, fishing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Matlacha. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that his ability to enjoy his property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Debra Hall, did not appear at the final hearing and no testimony was offered regarding her standing. The Project and Vicinity The Project site is 0.47 acres. At the Lock location, the South Spreader Waterway is 200 feet wide, and includes a 125-foot wide upland area secured by two seawalls, the 20-foot wide Lock, a 32-foot wide upland area secured by one seawall, and 23 feet of mangrove wetlands. The Lock is bordered to the north by property owned by Cape Harbour Marina, LLC, and bordered to the south by mangrove wetlands owned by the state of Florida. The 125-foot wide upland area and the 20-foot wide Lock form a barrier separating the South Spreader Waterway from the Caloosahatchee River. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock is not tidally influenced, but would become tidally influenced upon removal of the Lock. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 46. The City proposes to remove the Lock and one of the seawalls, reducing the 125-foot upland area to 20 feet. The proposed future condition of the area would include 125 feet of open canal directly connecting the South Spreader Waterway with the Caloosahatchee River. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 47. The primary purpose of the Lock's removal is to alleviate safety concerns related to boater navigation. The Project's in-water construction includes demolition and removal of the existing Lock, removal of existing fill in the 125-foot upland area, removal of existing seawalls, and construction of replacement seawalls. The City would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the Project, including sediment and erosion controls such as turbidity barriers. The turbidity barriers would be made of a material in which manatees could not become entangled. All personnel involved with the Project would be instructed about the presence of manatees. Also, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. History of the South Spreader Waterway In the mid-1970's, the co-trustees of Gulf American Corporation, GAC Properties Credit, Inc., and GAC Properties, Inc., (collectively GAC) filed for after-the-fact permits from the Department's predecessor agency (DER), for the large dredge and fill work project that created the canal system in Cape Coral. In 1977, DER entered into CO 15 with GAC to create the North and South Spreader Waterways and retention control systems, including barriers. The Lock was one of the barriers created in response to CO 15. The Spreader Waterways were created to restore the natural hydrology of the area affected by GAC's unauthorized dredging and filling activity. The Spreader Waterways collected and retained surface runoff waters originating from the interior of Cape Coral's canal system. The South Spreader Waterway was not designed to meet water quality standards, but instead to collect surface runoff, then allow discharge of the excess waters collected over and through the mangrove wetlands located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This fresh water flow was designed to mimic the historic sheet flow through the coastal fringe of mangroves and salt marshes of the Caloosahatchee River and Matlacha Pass estuaries. The fresh water slowly discharged over the coastal fringe until it finally mixed with the more saline waters of the estuaries. The estuarine environments located west and south of the Lock require certain levels of salinity to remain healthy ecosystems. Restoring and achieving certain salinity ranges was important to restoring and preserving the coastal fringe. In 1977 GAC finalized bankruptcy proceedings and executed CO 15. CO 15 required GAC to relinquish to the state of Florida the mangrove wetlands it owned on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This land grant was dedicated by a warranty deed executed in 1977 between GAC and the state of Florida. The Petitioners' expert, Kevin Erwin, worked as an environmental specialist for DER prior to and during the construction of the Spreader Waterways. Mr. Erwin was DER's main representative who worked with the GAC co-trustees to resolve the massive dredge and fill violation and design a system to restore the natural hydrology of the area. Mr. Erwin testified that the Lock was designed to assist in retention of fresh water in the South Spreader Waterway. The fresh water would be retained, slowed down, and allowed to slowly sheet flow over and through the coastal fringe. Mr. Erwin also testified that the South Spreader Waterway was not designed to allow direct tidal exchange with the Caloosahatchee River. In Mr. Erwin's opinion, the South Spreader Waterway appeared to be functioning today in the same manner as originally intended. Breaches and Exchange of Waters The Department's second amended notice of intent for the Project, stated that the Project was not expected to contribute to current water quality violations, because water in the South Spreader Waterway was already being exchanged with Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River through breaches and direct tidal flow. This second amended notice of intent removed all references to mitigation projects that would provide a net improvement in water quality as part of the regulatory basis for issuance of the permit. See Joint Exhibit 1 at pp. 326-333. The Department's witnesses testified that waters within the South Spreader Waterway currently mix with waters of the Caloosahatchee River when the Lock remains open during incoming and slack tides. A Department permit allowed the Lock to remain open during incoming and slack tides. Department witness, Megan Mills, the permitting program administrator, testified that she could not remember the exact date that permit was issued, but that it had been "a couple years." The location of breaches in the western and southern banks of the South Spreader Waterway was documented on another permit's drawings and pictures for a project titled "Cape Coral Spreader Waterway Restoration." See Cape Coral Ex. 9. Those documents located three breaches for repair and restoration identified as Breach 16A, Breach 16B, and Breach 20. The modeling reports and discussion that support the City's application showed these three breaches connect to Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Breach 20 was described as a connected tidal creek. Breach 16A and 16B were described as allowing water movement between Matlacha Pass and the South Spreader Waterway only when relatively high water elevations occurred in Matlacha Pass or in the South Spreader Waterway. The Department's water quality explanation of "mixing," was rather simplistic, and did not consider that the waterbody in which the Project would occur has three direct connections with an OFW that is a Class II waters designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting. Such a consideration would require the Department to determine whether to apply the OFW permitting standards, and the Class II waters permitting criteria in section 10.2.5 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); 62-4.242(2); and 62-302.400(17)(b)36. The Caloosahatchee River, at its entrance to the South Spreader Waterway, is a Class III waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. The mouth of the Caloosahatchee River is San Carlos Bay, which is a Class II waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. There was no evidence that the Department's regulatory analysis considered that the waterbody in which the Project would occur directly connects to Class III waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and is in close proximity to Class II waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(17)(b)36. and 62-330.302(1)(c).2/ Total Nitrogen The City's expert, Anthony Janicki, Ph.D., testified that nitrogen concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River were higher than in the South Spreader Waterway in the years 2017 and 2018. Thus, he opined that if the Lock is removed, water from the South Spreader Waterway would not negatively impact the Caloosahatchee River. However, the City's application was supported by an analysis, with more than a decade of monitoring data, which showed nitrogen concentration values were comparable inside the South Spreader Waterway and in the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Janicki also used the Department's Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model to estimate the Total Nitrogen (TN) loading that would enter the Caloosahatchee River through the Chiquita Lock. Dr. Janicki estimated that TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River, after removal of the Chiquita Lock, would amount to 30,746 pounds per year. The Caloosahatchee River is listed as impaired for nutrients and has a TN Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was set by the Department in 2009. Dr. Janicki opined that removing the Lock would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. But the Petitioners obtained his concession that his opinion was dependent on the City's completion of additional water quality enhancement projects in the future as part of its obligations under the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for achieving the TN TMDL. Dr. Janicki additionally testified that the potential TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River did not anticipate an actual impact to the River's water quality because the TN loads from the South Spreader Waterway were already factored into the 2009 TMDL. He essentially testified that the Lock's removal was anticipated and was factored into the model when the TMDL was established in 2009. Thus, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department and the City were not aligned regarding how the City's application would provide reasonable assurances of meeting applicable water quality standards. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the City relied on future projects to provide reasonable assurance that the removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department relied on a simplistic exchange of waters to determine that removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Water Quantity and Salinity The engineering report that supports the City's application stated that when the Lock is removed, the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock will become tidally influenced. With the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes for the South Spreader Waterway would increase from zero cubic meters per day to 63,645 cubic meters per day. At the location of Breach 20, with the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes would drastically decrease from 49,644 cubic meters per day to eight cubic meters per day. Dr. Janicki testified that Breach 20 was connected to a remnant tidal creek that meanders and eventually empties into an embayment. The evidence demonstrated that the embayment is Punta Blanca Bay, which is part of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Dr. Janicki opined that Breach 20 was an area of erosion risk and sediment transport into downstream mangroves that would be significantly reduced by removing the Lock. He explained that the reductions in flow would result in reductions in velocities through Breach 20 and in the South Spreader Waterway itself. Mr. Erwin testified that Breach 20 was not a "breach."3/ He described it as the location of a perpendicular intersection of the South Spreader Waterway with a small tidal creek, which connected to a tidal pond further back in the mangroves. Mr. Erwin testified that an "engineered sandbag concrete structure" was built at the shallow opening to limit the amount of flow into and out of this tidal creek system. But it was also designed to make sure that the tidal creek system "continued to get some amount of water." As found above, Lock removal would drastically reduce the volume of daily water fluxes into and out of Breach 20's tidal creek system. Mr. Erwin also testified that any issues with velocities or erosion would be exemplified by bed lowering, siltation, and stressed mangroves. He persuasively testified, however, that there was no such evidence of erosion and there were "a lot of real healthy mangroves." Mr. Erwin opined that removal of the Lock would cause the South Spreader Waterway to go from a closed, mostly fresh water system, to a tidal saline system. He described the current salinity level in the South Spreader Waterway to be low enough to support low salinity vegetation and not high enough to support marine organisms like barnacles and oysters. The City's application actually supports this opinion. Using the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model developed by Dr. Janicki for this Lock removal project, comparisons were made describing the salinity distribution within the South Spreader Waterway. The model was run with and without the Lock, for both a wet and dry year. Dr. Janicki testified, and the model showed, that removal of the Lock would result in increased salinity above the Lock and decreased salinity downstream of the Lock. However, he generally opined that the distribution of salinities was well within the normal ranges seen in this area. The City's application also concluded that the resultant salinities did not fall outside the preferred salinity ranges for seagrasses, oysters, and a wide variety of fish taxa. However, Dr. Janicki did not address specific changes in vegetation and encroachment of marine organisms that would occur with the increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway. Secondary Impacts to the Mangrove Wetlands Mr. Erwin testified that the mangroves located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway are currently in very good health. He additionally testified that loss of the current fresh water hydraulic head and an increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway would negatively impact the health of the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the City's application stated that removing the Lock would result in a drop in the water level of one to one and a half feet within the South Spreader Waterway. Mr. Erwin credibly and persuasively testified that a drop in water level of only a few inches would have negative effects on the health of mangroves, and that a drop of a foot could result in substantial mangrove die-off. Mr. Erwin testified that the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway consist of a variety of plants and algae in addition to mangroves. He described the wetlands as a mangrove community made up of different types of mangroves, and epiphytic vegetation such as marine algae. This mangrove community provides habitat for a "wide range of invertebrates." He further testified that these plants and algae uptake and transform the nutrients that flow over and through the mangrove wetlands before they reach the receiving waters. Thus, the mangrove wetlands on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway serve to filter nutrients out of the water discharged from the Waterway before it reaches Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River. Mr. Erwin's credible and persuasive testimony was contrary to the City's contention that Lock removal would not result in adverse impacts to the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. The City and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurances that removing the Lock would not have adverse secondary impacts to the health of the mangrove wetlands community adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered and Threatened Species The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the City's application and determined that if BMPs for in-water work were employed during construction, no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife were expected. For example, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities, and all personnel would be instructed about the presence of manatees. The FWC determination only addressed direct impacts during in-water construction work. The City's application contained supporting material that identified the major change resulting from removal of the Lock that may influence fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the Project, was the opportunity for movement to or from the South Spreader Waterway canal system. Threatened and endangered species of concern in the area included the Florida manatee and the smalltooth sawfish. The City's application stated that literature review showed the smalltooth sawfish and the Florida manatee utilized non-main-stem habitats, such as sea-wall lined canals, off the Caloosahatchee River. The City cited studies from 2011 and 2013, which showed that non-main-stem habitats were important thermal refuges during the winter, and part of the overall nursery area for smalltooth sawfish. The City concluded that removal of the Lock "would not be adverse, and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species." However, the Petitioner's expert witness, John Cassani, who is the Calusa Waterkeeper, testified that there is a smalltooth sawfish exclusion zone downstream of the Lock. He testified that the exclusion zone is a pupping area for smalltooth sawfish, and that rapid salinity fluctuations could negatively impact their habitat. The City also concluded that any impacts to the Florida manatee would not be adverse, "and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species, as well as a reduction in risk of entrapment or crushing in a canal lock system." At the same time, the City acknowledged that "watercraft collision is a primary anthropogenic threat to manatees." The City's literature review included a regional assessment by FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) from 2006. Overall, the FWRI report concluded that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, at San Carlos Bay, was a "hot spot" for boat traffic coinciding with the shift and dispersal of manatees from winter refugia. The result was a "high risk of manatee- motorboat collisions." In addition, testimony adduced at the hearing from an 18-year employee of Cape Harbour Marina, Mr. Frank Muto, was that Lock removal would result in novice boaters increasing their speed, ignoring the no-wake and slow-speed zones, and presenting "a bigger hazard than the [L]ock ever has." Boater Navigation Concerns Oliver Clarke was the City’s principal engineer during the application process, and signed the application as the City's authorized agent. Mr. Clarke testified that he has witnessed boater congestion at the Lock. He also testified that lack of boating experience and weather concerns can exacerbate the boater congestion issues at the Lock. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Frank Muto, the general manager of Cape Harbour Marina. Mr. Muto has been at the Cape Harbour Marina for 18 years. The marina has 78 docks on three finger piers along with transient spots. The marina is not currently subject to tidal flows and its water depth is between six and a half and seven and a half feet. He testified that they currently have at least 28 boats that maintain a draft of between four and a half and six feet of water. If the water depth got below four feet, those customers would not want to remain at the marina. Mr. Muto further testified that the Lock was in place when the marina was built, and the marina and docks were designed for an area with no tidal flow. Mr. Muto also testified that he has witnessed several boating safety incidents in and around the Lock. He testified that he would attribute almost all of those incidents to novice boaters who lack knowledge of proper boating operations and locking procedures. Mr. Muto additionally testified that there is law enforcement presence at the Lock twenty-four hours a day, including FWC marine patrol and the City's marine patrol.
Conclusions For Petitioners: J. Michael Hannon, Qualified Representative 2721 Clyde Street Matlacha, Florida 33993 John S. Turner, Esquire Peterson Law Group Post Office Box 670 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 For Respondent City of Cape Coral: Craig D. Varn, Esquire Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven D. Griffin City of Cape Coral Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 150027 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Individual Environmental Resource Permit Number 244816-005 to the City of Cape Coral for removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock. The final order deny Petitioners' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2019.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Respondent is the successor agency to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and has permitting authority over the subject project pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's file number for this matter is 311765419. Petitioner, Alden Pond, Inc., is a subsidiary of First Union National Bank of Florida and is the successor in interest to Orchid Island Associates. John C. Kurtz is the designated property manager for this project and appeared at the formal hearing as Alden Pond's authorized agent. THE PROPERTY AND THE VICINITY Petitioner has record title to all of Government Lot 9 in Section 15, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the Jungle Trail Road right of way, and all of Government Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the road right of way for State Road 510. Petitioner does not own land below the mean high water line of the Indian River, which forms the western boundary of the property. Much of the property, approximately the northern half, abuts a part of the Indian River that has been leased by the State of Florida to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first national wildlife refuge established in the United States and has been declared to be a water of international importance. Upland of the proposed project is a golf course and residential development. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is part of the Intercoastal Waterway system, is navigable by large vessels, and is an important travel corridor for manatees. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is a healthy estuarine system. Minor deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards have been recorded. These minor deviations are typical and represent natural conditions for this type of system. Water quality sampling from March 1994 yielded no samples in which deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards were observed. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT On February 21, 1990, Orchid Island Associates submitted to the Respondent an application for a wetland resource permit to construct a boat basin and canal on its property adjacent to the Indian River. The artificial waterway that Petitioner proposes to construct on its property will, for ease of reference, also be referred to as a canal. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the hydrological channel. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the south terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the access channel. The original project involved, among other features, a canal approximately 6,400 feet long, the dredging of the hydrological channel and the access channel, the construction of 44 docks to be located along the eastern side of the canal, and the dredging of an area adjacent to the canal for a 58 slip marina. The width of the canal was to range between 100 and 200 feet. The original project required the filling of 4.72 acres of wetlands and the dredging of 8.81 acres of wetlands for a direct impact on 13.53 acres of wetlands. On January 15, 1991, Respondent issued a preliminary evaluation letter pertaining to the initial application that contained the following conclusion: "the project cannot be recommended for approval." On September 12, 1991, Respondent issued a Notice of Permit Denial dated September 12, 1991, which stated that the application would be denied. This denial letter did not suggest any revisions that would make the project permittable and represented a strong position by the Respondent that the project as originally proposed should be denied. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial correctly described the project site and the initial proposal as follows: . . . The proposed project is located north of and adjacent to County Road 510, north and east of Wabasso Bridge and adjacent to the eastern shore of the Indian River. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II, Outstanding Florida Waters. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, also an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water, is immediately west of the project site. Historically, the site of the marina and its associated upland development consisted of a wetland adjacent to the Indian River and a large citrus grove. Subsequently, the wetland was surrounded by a dike and impounded for mosquito control purposes. At some point in the past, a borrow pit 1/ was excavated within the landward (eastern) edge of the impounded wetland. Most of the citrus grove has been converted to a residential community associated with a golf course. * * * The proposed project included excavation of a 6,400 linear ft. canal along the upland/wetland edge between the impoundment and the adjacent upland, dredging the existing borrow pit to a depth of -8 ft. NGVD to create a boat basin that will connect it to the excavated canal, construction of 58 boat slips within the excavated boat basin, excavation of two flushing channels through a portion of the impoundment dike and wetlands within the impoundment to connect the excavated channel to the Indian River and a natural lake within the impoundment, excavation of a 700 ft. long access channel to connect the excavated canal to the Intercoastal Waterway through the seagrass beds along the southern boundary of the project site, filling of 4.72 ac. of wetlands at three locations within the impoundment to create uplands, and construction of a boardwalk along the southern edge of the excavated canal through the wetlands in the impoundment to provide access to the marina basin. To mitigate for the loss of wetlands, the applicant proposes to enhance 68 ac. of wetlands within the mosquito impoundment by returning the impoundment berm to grade and implementing a rotary ditching project and open marsh mosquito management to improve the hydrology of the wetlands in the impoundment, planting high marsh species, and donating the enhanced wetlands to the State of Florida for incorporation into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge through a lease to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial provided, in pertinent part, the following reasons for the denial of the project: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: Water quality data for the Indian River adjacent to the project site indicates that the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) standard is not currently being met. The proposed 8 ft. deep canal and marina basin to the Indian River would be expected to result in introduction of additional low D.O. waters into a system which already does not meet the D.O. standard, thereby resulting in further degradation of the water quality in the Indian River. In addition to the D.O. problem, the project would result in water quality degradation due to the pollutant loading of marina related pollutants from the boats docked at the 58 slips that are proposed as part of the project in the marina basin. Additional water quality degradation also may result from boats that are moored at docks that may be constructed at a later date by the owners of the 44 lots adjacent to the canal, pursuant to the exemption in Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. This exemption provides that private docks in artificially constructed waters are exempt from dredge and fill permitting and may be constructed without a permit providing they meet the size criteria listed in the statute and provided they do not impede navigation, affect flood control, or cause water quality violations. The boats in the canal system and boat basin would be a chronic source of pollutants for the life of the facility. The proposed water depths and slip sizes will make the basin accessible for use by large boats which can be expected to have on-board sanitation devices. The hydrographic report submitted by the applicant indicates the proposed waters will flush with a 2.6 hr. duration. Although this flushing rate will prevent water quality pollutants from being concentrated in the waters of the basin, it also will have the effect of transporting boat related pollutants to the Indian River, thereby causing degradation of the Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is within Class II Waters, prohibited for shellfish harvesting, but is adjacent to Class II Waters, approved for shellfish harvesting. Discussion with the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Regulation and Development, indicates that the pollutant loading from the project would probably cause the adjacent waters to be reclassified as "prohibited for shellfish harvesting." The reclassification of the adjacent waters would lower the existing use of the waterbody. Rules 17-302.300(1), (4), , and (6), Florida Administrative Code, state that: Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. * * * Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. As a result of the above cited factors, degradation of water quality is expected. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the degradation of existing water quality in an Outstanding Florida Water and the violation of water quality standards pursuant to Rules 17-312.080(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. Specific State Water Quality Standards in Rules 17-302.500, 17-302.510 and 17-302.550, Florida Administrative Code, affected by the completion of the project include the following: Bacteriological Quality - the median coliform MPN (Most Probable Number) of water shall not exceed seventy (70) per hundred (100) milliliters, and not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples shall exceed a MPN of two hundred and thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters. The fecal coliform bacterial level shall not exceed a median value of 14 MPN per 100 milliliters with not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples exceeding 43 MPN per 100 milliliters. Dissolved Oxygen - the concentration in all waters shall not average less than 5 milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Oils and Greases: Dissolved or emulsified oils and greases shall not exceed 5.0 milligrams per liter. No undissolved oil, or visible oil defined as iridescence, shall be present so as to cause taste or odor, or otherwise interfere with the beneficial use of waters. In addition the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that ambient water quality in the OFW will not be degraded pursuant to Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, pursuant to Rule 17-312.080(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the Department shall deny a permit for dredging or filling in Class II waters which are not approved for shellfish harvesting unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure to protect those waters and waters in the vicinity. The plan or procedure shall detail the measures to be taken to prevent significant damage to the immediate project areas and to adjacent area and shall provide reasonable assurance that the standards for Class II waters will not be violated. In addition to impacts to water quality, the project is expected to adversely affect biological resources. A portion (estimated at between 0.4 and 0.5 ac.) of the access channel alignment is vegetated by seagrasses, the dominant species being Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal weed). Seagrass beds provide important habitat and forage for a variety of wildlife species. The loss of seagrass beds will result in a loss of productivity to the entire system that would be difficult to replace. The 4.72 ac. of wetlands proposed to be filled and the excavation required for the proposed channels (approximately 38 ac.) are productive high marsh and mixed mangrove wetlands which are providing wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. These wetlands have been adversely impacted by the freeze of 1989, but they appear to be recovering well. The proposed mitigation would provide some benefits through exotic removal and increased hydrologic connection to the Indian River. However, these benefits would not be adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed wetland losses for this project. The project site and the adjacent Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge are used for nesting and foraging by a variety of species, including little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) (Species of Special Concern (SSC)--Florida Game and Fresh Water fish Commission (FGFWFC)), reddish egret (E. rufescens) (SSC-FGFWFC), snowy egrets (E. thula) (SSC-FGFWFC), tricolored herons (E. tricolor) (SSC-FGFWFC), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) (SSC-FGFWFC), roseate spoonbills (Ajaja ajaja) (SSC-FGFWFC), least tern (Sterna antillarum) (threatened-FGFWFC), and wood storks (endangered-FGFWFC). The construction of the project and the increased boating activity due to the project would result in the disturbance of those species that use the wetlands in the project area. The Indian River adjacent to the project site is used by the West Indian Manatee (endangered-FGFWFC). The increased boat traffic would increase the chance of manatee deaths due to boat impact. In addition, the excavation of the access channel through the seagrass beds would decrease the available forage for manatees in the project area. For the above reasons, this project is also not clearly in the public interest, as required pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, because it is expected to: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; be permanent in nature; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. On September 12, 1991, the owner and holder of the mortgage on the Orchid Island development (which includes the real property on which the Petitioner hopes to construct the project at issue in this proceeding) instituted foreclosure proceedings. The circuit judge who presided over the foreclosure proceeding soon thereafter appointed an interim receiver to manage the property until a receiver who would manage the property for the duration of the foreclosure proceeding could be appointed. THE PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND FACTS AS TO ESTOPPEL On October 31, 1991, representatives of Orchid Island Associates met with Respondent's staff to discuss this application. Trudie Bell, the Environmental Specialist assigned to supervise this application, and Douglas MacLaughlin, an attorney employed by Respondent, attended the meeting. Those attending the meeting on behalf of Orchid Island Associates included the interim trustee, the attorney for Orchid Island Associates, and Darrell McQueen, who at all times pertinent to this proceeding was the project engineer. Mr. McQueen was upset that the project was going to be denied and wanted to know what could be done to make it a permittable project. In response to Mr. McQueen, Ms. Bell, without making any promises, suggested the following modifications to the project that might make it permittable: moving the canal more upland, elimination of the boat basin/marina, reducing the depth of the artificial waterway, and increasing the width of the littoral zone. On November 11, 1991, the representatives of Orchid Island Associates responded to the Respondent's suggested modifications and agreed to make the modifications. In an effort to design a project that would be acceptable to Respondent, Orchid Island Associates proposed to the Respondent to make certain modifications to the design of the project. Petitioner has agreed to those modifications which include the following: Elimination of the boat basin and associated 58 dock marina and clubhouse, but with the addition of 18 relatively narrow residential lots, each of which would have a dock on the south end of the waterway. 2/ Reduction of the depth of the artificial waterway to -7 feet NGVD from the proposed -8 feet NGVD. Realignment of the artificial waterway as depicted on the sealed drawings submitted to Respondent and dated January 28, 1993. Increasing the width of the littoral zone to be created along the length of the artificial waterway to 40 feet on the west side and 10 feet on the east side. On November 12, 1991, John C. Kurtz was appointed the receiver of the Orchid Island Associates property and remained the receiver until the property was conveyed to Petitioner at a foreclosure sale on July 31, 1993. After it acquired the property, Petitioner employed Mr. Kurtz to manage the subject property. Mr. Kurtz has been active in the project since his appointment as the receiver of the property. On November 21, 1991, Petitioner met with Respondent's staff, including Ms. Bell, to discuss the modifications. At that meeting, the Respondent's staff reacted favorably to the modifications agreed to by Petitioner. Ms. Bell described the revisions as "excellent" and "a great idea" and stated that the project was "a nice project" and that it looked like the project was heading in the right direction. Ms. Bell also represented that the Respondent would grant the Petitioner extensions of time to allow for a formal revision if the project was deemed permittable. Ms. Bell kept her superiors informed of the status of her review. On December 11, 1991, Charles Barrowclaugh, an employee of the Respondent, made an inspection of the site and informed representatives of the Petitioner that he had briefed Carol Browner, who was Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation, as to the project and the proposed modifications. Mr. Barrowclaugh stated that he believed the project was permittable. Petitioner was encouraged by Mr. Barrowclaugh's comments and by the fact that he would incur the expenses of traveling to the site. Between December 11, 1991, and November 13, 1992, Petitioner provided information to Respondent pertaining to the revised project. This additional information included a description of the revised plan and a revised schematic drawing, but it did not include detailed drawings of the revised project. On November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell wrote to Mr. McQueen a letter that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The Bureau of Wetland Resource Management has reviewed the revised plan and additional information submitted on September 16. The revised proposal appears to address all of the issues that made the original proposal unpermittable. The detailed 8.5 by 11 inch permitting drawings will have to be revised to reflect the revised proposal and submitted to the Bureau for review. Kelly Custer and Orlando Rivera will be reviewing the project in the future. Petitioner interpreted that letter to mean that the Respondent intended to permit the project. At the time she wrote the letter of November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell thought the revised project would be permitted. Petitioner relied on the oral representations made by Respondent's staff and on the November 13, 1992, letter in continuing pursuit of a permit. Absent these encouraging comments by Respondent's staff, Petitioner would have discontinued pursuit of the permit. Although Petitioner was understandably encouraged by the discussions its representatives had with Respondent's staff, it knew, or should have known, that the favorable comments it was receiving from members of Respondent's staff were preliminary and that additional information would be required and further evaluation of the project would take place. Petitioner's representatives knew that the staff with whom they were having these discussions did not have the authority to approve the application, but that they could only make recommendations to their superiors. In late 1992, Kevin Pope, an Environmental Specialist employed by Respondent, was assigned as the primary reviewer of the revised project. At the time he became the primary reviewer of the project, Mr. Pope did not make an immediate, independent evaluation of the project, and relied on what other staffers who had been involved in the review told him. Until he conducted his own review of the project, Mr. Pope believed that the project was "clearly permissible". Mr. Pope informed a representative of the Petitioner of that belief and told the representative that he was prepared to start drafting the permit once he received final drawings documenting the modifications to the project. Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Pope received the drawings he requested. After he received and reviewed the final drawings, Mr. Pope determined that all issues raised by the denial letter had not been addressed. Among the concerns he had was the fact that the project would dredge into the Indian River to the Intercoastal Waterway and that part of the dredging activity (at the north end of the project) would be in Class II shellfish approved waters. Mr. Pope again contacted the state and federal agencies that had originally commented on the project, described the proposed modifications to the project, and requested comments. Most of the agencies continued to object to the project. On August 5, 1992, Mr. Pope held a meeting with the commenting agencies and with representatives of the Petitioner to discuss the objections to the project. 3/ The agencies provided additional comments after this meeting and most continued to oppose the project. Mr. Kurtz testified that on June 1, 1993, Stacey Callahan, an attorney employed by Respondent, told him that she was attempting to draft the permit for the project. Ms. Callahan asked for sample wording for a restrictive covenant or for an easement that would limit the number of boats that could use the proposed docks. Subsequent to that inquiry, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Pope that the project would be denied. Petitioner has not made any specific proposal to assure a limitation on the number of boats that will be able to dock in the proposed canal. In June of 1993, a large number of objections to the project were filed with Respondent by members of the public. In early July, 1993, Secretary Wetherell responded to those objectors with a letter stating, in part, that the "Department's letter of November 1992 indicating an intent to issue for the project was imminent appears to have been premature." On September 20, 1993, Mr. Pope informed Petitioner's attorney that the Respondent was not going to change its position that the project, even with the modifications, should be denied. The decision not to permit the modified project was made by Mr. Pope. The only permit application filed by the Petitioner was the application for the initial permit. No formal amended application that incorporates all of the changes that Petitioner discussed with Respondent's staff was filed. A total of $74,735 was spent on behalf of the applicant on this project between December 26, 1991, (the date of the meeting with Mr. Barrowclaugh) and July 31, 1993, (the date the property was conveyed to Petitioner). From July 31, 1993, through April of 1994, Petitioner spent an additional $47,488 on the application for this project. The expenditures after July 31, 1993, included engineering costs that were incurred before that date. These figures do not include the costs of this proceeding. THE REVISED PROJECT The revised project may be summarily described as follows: Petitioner proposes to construct a canal that will be approximately 6,400 feet long, up to 200 feet wide, and -7 NGVD deep as depicted on drawings that have been submitted into evidence. There will be a littoral zone 40 feet wide on the west side of the canal and a littoral zone 10 feet wide on the east side. A hydrological channel, proposed from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable a proper flow of water through the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 70 feet in length, and -3 NGVD. Petitioner proposes to construct a barrier at the north terminus of the canal to prevent manatees and boats from entering the canal from the north and has agreed to maintain that barrier. An access channel, proposed from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable boats access to the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 700 feet in length, and -7 NGVD. A total of 62 docks are proposed. The project includes a mitigation plan that will be discussed below. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The construction of the hydrological channel would be in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters. Dredging in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters is prohibited unless a variance is issued by Respondent that would permit this otherwise prohibited activity. Petitioner's attorney submitted a letter to the Respondent on August 18, 1993, for a variance to construct the channel from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: DEP Rule 17-312.080(17) states: "Permits for dredging or filling directly in Class II or Class III waters which are approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources shall not be issued." This provision is applicable to the pending application by Orchid Island Associates. Accordingly, we discussed Orchid Island requesting a variance pursuant to Section 403.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-103.100, Florida Administrative Code, as a means of overcoming this prohibition. Since the dredge and fill application is pending, you indicated it would be appropriate for Orchid Island to ask, during final review of this application, that the Department also consider a request for a variance pursuant to the above mentioned statute and rule. Please consider this letter that request. . . . Petitioner did not submit along with its request the fee required by Respondent to process that request. Respondent did not advise Petitioner that it would not process its request without the requisite application fee until the prehearing stipulation was prepared for this proceeding shortly before the formal hearing. There was no evidence that Petitioner attempted to check on the status of its request for a variance or that it expected Respondent to act on the request for a variance independent of its final review of the overall project. As of the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not submitted to Respondent the fee that Respondent asserts is required before the request for the variance will be processed. Respondent asserted that position in the prehearing statement that was filed shortly before the formal hearing. The evidence as to the flow of water through the proposed canal assumed the existence of the hydrological channel from the north terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway and the existence of the access channel from the south terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT The revised version of the artificial waterway will be excavated primarily from uplands, but the excavation will require that 3.6 acres of wetlands be filled and 7.1 acres of wetlands be dredged. The direct impact on wetlands will be at least 10.7 acres. The mitigation plan proposes that the berms around the mosquito impoundment will be leveled, the berm ditches will be filled, and certain rotary ditches will be dredged. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that proposed activity was not established. The artificial waterway will be constructed utilizing a series of separate construction cells, a rim ditch, and filtration chambers. All excavated material will be disposed of on uplands. The construction system will filter most solids. Turbidity suppression devices will be used to minimize any turbidity associated with the excavation of the access channel at the south terminus and the hydrological channel at the north terminus. Petitioner established that its proposed construction techniques are consistent with best management practices. The small body of water that is referred to as the former borrow pit in the denial letter of September 12, 1991, is known as Boot Lake. Petitioner proposes to dredge the eastern end of Boot Lake, consisting of an area 800 feet by 180 feet (3.3 acres), to create part of the canal. The access channel at the south terminus of the canal will be approximately 700 feet in length and will have to be hydraulically excavated in the Indian River to connect the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. The hydrological channel at the north terminus of the canal will be hydraulically excavated to connect the canal to the Indian River. The connection will require approximately 70 feet of dredging to -3 NGVD, which is the minimum necessary to maintain the proper flow of water through the canal. HYDROLOGY OF THE CANAL The artificial waterway will function as a flow-through system driven by a difference in the water surface elevation (the head difference) between the north terminus and the south terminus. The flushing of the artificial waterway far exceeds the Respondent's flushing requirement benchmark, which is a flushing time of four days. If a hypothetical pollutant's concentration is reduced to 10 percent of its initial concentration in four days, the flushing is considered to be acceptable. The flushing time for the system is approximately 2.6 hours, which will produce five total volume replacements per tidal cycle. The predicted flushing of the artificial waterway is quite rapid and energetic. The predominate flow of water in the artificial waterway is from north to south. At times, however, the flow will be from the south to the north. At the request of the Respondent, Petitioner conducted a tracer dye study within the Indian River at the proposed south terminus of the artificial waterway. No tracer dye study was requested for the north terminus. Although there was some disagreement as to the import of the tracer dye study, it established that pollutants introduced into the Indian River from the canal would be rapidly dispersed in the Indian River. WATER QUALITY - THE CANAL The artificial waterway will be classified as Class III waters of the State. Water quality within the artificial waterway will reflect the current water quality in the Indian River. Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the water quality within the artificial waterway itself will not violate state standards. Two potential sources of pollutants to the artificial waterway have been identified. The first source is stormwater runoff through the stormwater management system associated with the upland development. The second is pollution inherent with the docking and operation of large vessels. Respondent interprets its rules so that discharge of pollutants into the artificial waterway will constitute indirect discharges to the Indian River. Because of the excellent flushing capacity of the canal, pollutants will not tend to accumulate in the canal. A pollutant entering the canal or a spill of pollutants into the canal will mix very little in the canal, probably less than five percent, so the pollutant will discharge from the canal into the Indian River as a plug. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether pollutants introduced into the canal will enter the Indian River in measurable quantities. Testimony was elicited from Dr. Roessler, one of Petitioner's experts, that water entering the Indian River from the artificial waterway will not contain pollutants that are either measurably or statistically differentiable from the Indian River itself. That result depends, however, on the amount and the source of the pollutant introduced into the canal. Because of the rapid flushing of the canal, small spills or slowly released discharges of pollutants are not expected to result in water quality degradation in the Indian River. Since a pollutant introduced into the canal will exit in a plug essentially in the same concentration as it entered the canal, Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances that large spills or discharges of pollutants from vessels or from other sources will not be discharged into the Indian River in concentrations that can be measured or that such large spills or discharges will not degrade the quality of the Indian River. Water from the canal will come out of both the north end and the south end of the canal. Some of the plume coming out of the north end may tend to hug the shoreline, with some of the plume reentering the canal when the tides change. Stormwater runoff contains significant amounts of fecal coliform, sometimes more than raw sewage. The stormwater management system associated with the upland development was permitted by the St. Johns Water Management District. The majority of the system is currently in place and functioning to retain stormwater runoff. The stormwater management system is designed to retain all of the first 4.75 inches of rainfall and most of the first 6.2 inches of rainfall. The design of this system exceeds the requirements imposed by the St. Johns Water Management District, which is that the first 1.5 inches of rainfall be retained. Stormwater management regulations are technology-based treatment criteria. If a system meets the retention requirement, it is presumed that no water quality will be violated by discharges through the system. Petitioner established that the stormwater management system was designed and constructed to retain at least three times the amount of rainfall required by the St. Johns Water Management District. Construction of the proposed canal will intercept two stormwater discharge pipes from the upland golf course and residential development. There was no evidence that the St. Johns Water Management System has reviewed this change in the system that has been permitted. The proposed change in where the outflow will be discharged could be significant since the discharge pipes are presently designed to discharge overflows from the system into wetland areas that provided additional natural treatment of the overflow before the overflow reaches the Indian River. With this change the overflow will be discharged during extraordinary storm events into the canal and thereafter into the Indian River without additional natural treatment. Because there will be modifications to the stormwater system the approval of that system by the St. Johns Water Management District should not be relied upon as providing reasonable assurances that no water quality violations will be caused by stormwater discharge. If this project is to be permitted, Petitioner should be required as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit to have the proposed changes to the system reviewed by the St. Johns Water Management District and it should be required to obtain an amendment to the stormwater management system permit that would authorize the proposed changes. The project contemplates the construction of 62 docks. The size and the docking capacity of each dock has not been established. While Petitioner presented testimony that it is likely that only 50 percent of the docks will likely be used at any one time, that testimony is considered to be speculative. The number and size of boats that can or will be docked in the canal at any one time or on a regular basis is unknown. It is likely that each dock will have docking capacity for at least one vessel up to 60 feet in length and for a smaller vessel. The manner in which these docks will be constructed was not established. Chromatic copper arsenic, which is frequently used to coat docks and anti-fouling paints containing heavy metals used on boats are sources of contamination to shellfishing. Oils and greases from boats contain hydrocarbons which can adversely impact shellfish. These contaminants can have adverse impacts to shellfish at very low concentrations. Petitioner has agreed to prohibit live-aboard vessels and to prohibit the fueling and maintenance of vessels within the artificial waterway. Sewage containing fecal coliform dumped or spilled from boats or from stormwater discharge is a primary source of contamination for shellfishing waters. It is the practice of the Respondent's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section to close waters to shellfishing in the vicinity of marinas, mainly due to potential contamination from untreated sewage. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section does not recommend the immediate closing of shellfishing waters when a project involves single family docks associated with a residence because it assumes people will use bathroom facilities in the house instead of on the boat. The Respondent does not have reasonable assurances that there will be houses associated with each of the 50 foot lots designated at the southern end of the canal. If a proposed facility has boat docks, but does not have houses associated with each dock, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would recommend closure of shellfishing in the vicinity of the facility. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would not recommend immediate closure of the shellfishing waters in the vicinity of this proposed project because it has assumed that each of the proposed docks will be associated with a house. If this project is to be permitted, reasonable assurances should be required that a residence will be constructed before or contemporaneously with the construction of a dock. The modifications made by Petitioner to the project will reduce the danger of pollutants from vessels in the artificial waterway. However, because the number and the size of the vessels that will be using the artificial waterway was not established, the extent of pollutants from vessels is unknown. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that measurable pollutants would not indirectly discharge into the Indian River from the canal. IMPACT ON WETLANDS Of the approximately 10.70 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed waterway, 4.10 acres are predominately impacted by invasive exotic (non-native) plants, 4.27 acres are somewhat impacted by exotic plants, and 2.23 acres are not impacted by exotic plants. The exotic plants found at the project site are primarily Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. The mitigation plan, which will be discussed below, proposes that the berms constructed around the mosquito impoundment area be removed and the rim ditches that abut the berms be filled. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that activity was not established. The project contemplates that rotary ditches will be constructed at different places in the mosquito impoundment area after the berms are removed and the berm ditches filled. The areas to be impacted by the construction of the rotary ditches were not identified. The Petitioner proposes to dredge out the entire east end of Boot Lake for use as part of the canal. This area will be approximately 800 feet by 180 feet and will be 3.3 acres. Boot Lake is a fairly healthy biological system, about the same as the Indian River. It was found to contain 22 species of fish and seven species of birds, with brown pelican and the great blue heron dominant. Eleven species of crustacean, six species of mollusks, 24 vermes 4/ and one coelenterate were collected from the lake. Replacement of the eastern portion of Boot Lake with the canal will adversely impact those species. Between the Indian River and the proposed waterway is a mosquito impoundment constructed in the early 1960s. The mosquito impoundment and associated berms total approximately 105 acres. The exact area was not established since there is an unresolved issue as to the exact location of the mean high water line. 5/ The impoundment is breached in several locations and no longer functions efficiently as a mosquito impoundment. IMPACTS ON SEAGRASSES The excavation of the access channel from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway will involve the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of a healthy, productive seagrass bed. Seagrasses are beneficial for wildlife habitat as they provide a substrate for algae and diatoms. Seagrasses are a direct food source for manatees and other species, and provide shelter and protection for fish. Seagrasses observed in this area where grasses will be eliminated are Halodule writtii, Syringodium filiforme, and Halophia johnsonii. Halophia, one of the identified species in this seagrass bed, is designated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as a rare and endangered species. Besides the seagrasses actually eliminated where the channel is to be constructed, other nearby seagrasses are also likely to be affected. The sides of the channel are likely to slough to some degree, which would adversely impact the seagrasses abutting the channel. The operation of power boats, even at slow speeds, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. Maintenance dredging, which will be required every few years, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. There are presently thousands of acres of seagrasses located within the Indian River. There has been a historical decline in seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon. Since 1950, there has been a 30 percent loss of seagrasses and seagrass habitat. IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH The proposed project will have an adverse impact on shellfish and shellfishing. At a minimum, the project will require dredging in a shellfishing area. The hydrological channel that will be dredged to connect the north terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be located in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. Both commercial and recreational shellfishing occur in the Indian River adjacent to the project site. The predominate flow of water through the canal will be southerly. There will be, however, a predictable northerly flow of waters that will cause waters from the proposed canal and any associated contaminants contained in those waters to flow from the north terminus of the canal into the Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. The proposed project may introduce a significant amount of freshwater into the adjoining shellfishing waters of Indian River, primarily in the vicinity of the north terminus of the canal. Any additional freshwater discharges to shellfishing waters is a concern because fecal coliform bacteria survive longer in freshwater than saltwater. Three likely sources of freshwater that would be added by this project to the Indian River in the conditionally approved shellfishing area were identified by Respondent. First, the proposed canal appears to be intersecting near its north terminus with a sulphur spring or artesian well which produces fresh water with a high sulphur content. Fresh water will likely be introduced into the canal from this source and discharged into the shellfishing waters when the tidal flow becomes northward. Second, freshwater may be introduced into the canal from the overflow pipes from the surface water management system. This source of freshwater would not be significant. Third, additional freshwater may enter the area after the berms around the mosquito impoundment area are removed as contemplated by the mitigation plan. The extent of this source of freshwater was not established. If this project is permitted, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section will monitor this area for water quality to determine if the area will have to be closed for shellfishing. This additional monitoring, for which Respondent will pay, will be required because of the potential adverse impacts this project presents to shellfishing. Because of evidence of deteriorating water quality, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section is recommending that the shellfishing waters adjacent to the site be reclassified from "conditionally approved" to "conditionally restricted". In "conditionally restricted" waters, shellfish can still be harvested, but the harvested shellfish have to be placed in designated waters or in on-land facilities so the shellfish can cleanse themselves of fecal coliform before going to market. The conditions in the area of the proposed project are not yet bad enough to prohibit shellfishing. IMPACT ON MANATEES There are approximately 2,000 manatees living in Florida waters, with approximately 1,000 living on the east coast and approximately 1,000 living on the west coast. The manatee is an endangered species, and the long-term survival of the species is not secure. The Indian River in the area of the proposed project provides good habitat for manatees and is a major travel corridor for several hundred manatees. Indian River County is one of 13 key counties that has been designated by the Governor and Cabinet to address special manatee concerns. Manatees traveling back and forth in this area usually use the channel of the Intercoastal Waterway because it is deeper and allows manatees an easier travel route. Speed zones for boat traffic are an effective manatee protection mechanism. The artificial waterway will be posted as an idle speed zone. The area where the access channel connecting the south terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be dredged is presently designated as a slow speed zone and the access channel itself will be marked. Petitioner has agreed to implement Respondent's standard manatee conditions. Seagrasses are an important source of food for manatees. The project contemplates that 0.05 acres of seagrass will be dredged, but that Spartina will be planted in parts of the littoral zone. While manatees eat Spartina to some extent, they prefer seagrasses. Since there are thousands of acres of seagrass located in the Indian River, it is concluded that the elimination of 0.05 acres of seagrass associated with this project is negligible and will not adversely affect manatees. A barrier to navigation will be maintained at the north terminus of the waterway to preclude boat access and limit access to the waterway by manatees. Manatees would be unable to enter or leave the artificial waterway via the north terminus. The artificial waterway will not attract manatees and should not, in and of itself, adversely impact manatees. The main adverse impact to manatees from this proposed project is the threat of collisions by boats that leave the canal and enter the waters of the Indian River, including the Intercoastal Waterway. At least ten West Indian manatees have been killed by boats in Indian River County since 1981. Even with the speed limits, the increase in boating in this area will present an increased risk to manatees. IMPACT ON BIRDS No species of wading birds, including those listed as endangered or threatened, nests or roosts within the project site. The project site is not currently heavily utilized by wading birds, but several species of wading birds were observed foraging for food in Boot Lake. It is reasonable to expect that dredging of Boot Lake and the increased boat traffic will have an adverse impact on birds. Diving birds, such as the brown pelican and least tern, will benefit from the increased open waterway created by the canal, which should serve as a feeding habitat. Wading birds congregate and nest in rookeries. The area of the proposed project is within the foraging range of 14 active rookeries, and it is reasonable to expect that those rookeries will be disturbed by the increased boat use or human activity that the project will bring to this area. Officials of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge have observed such disturbances and are opposed to this project. The pressure of human and boating activities on bird rookeries in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, including human intrusion into buffer zones established to protect the birds, has resulted in a continuing decline of the bird population since 1960. When disturbed by boats or by humans, the parent wading bird will often leave the nest, which exposes the eggs or the chicks to attack by predators or to overexposure to sunlight. Boaters will often cause wading birds who are foraging for food to flush, which disturbs their search for food. Certain species of wading birds are flushed more frequently and for longer distances when flushed from narrow tidal creeks in Spartina marshes (a habitat similar to the proposed canal) than in open shoreline habitat. IMPACT ON FISH The existing ditches inside the mosquito impoundment berms presently provide a habitat similar to that of a tidal creek for a variety of fish, including juvenile snook, tarpon, red drum, black drum, lady fish, and mullet. The proposed project will result in the filling of these habitats and impoundments. As a consequence of that activity, these species of fish will be adversely impacted by the project. Although Petitioner proposes to construct certain rotary ditches that it asserts would provide a habitat similar to that provided by the existing ditches, Petitioner has not submitted any plans or drawings or other specific information concerning these rotary ditches and has not provided reasonable assurances that these proposed rotary will replace the habitat that will be eliminated by the filling of the existing ditches. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Other projects have been permitted on the Indian River north and south of the proposed project that have increased boat traffic on the Indian River in the vicinity of the project. The Respondent has not identified any similar projects which have been permitted in the vicinity within the last five years. The only similar application pending before the Respondent in the vicinity of the project is for two docks north of the project site. Although Respondent established that boat traffic on the Indian River has increased, this project is unique in scope and design, and it is concluded that Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that no negative cumulative impacts will be associated with the project. OTHER PERMITTING CRITERIA The parties stipulated to the following facts that pertain to permitting criteria: The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The proposed waterway will be located almost entirely on private property in areas not currently utilized for fishing or other recreational activities. Except for the impacts on shellfishing, birds, and fish discussed above, the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values within the vicinity of the project. THE MITIGATION PLAN Petitioner has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts associated with the type project it is proposing. Because there will be adverse impacts to an Outstanding Florida Water, the project can be permitted only if it is determined that the mitigation plan offsets the adverse impacts and makes the project clearly in the public interest. Petitioner's mitigation plan was contained in the original application and was revised between October 1991 and January 1992. Respondent considered the current mitigation plan in its review of this project. The current mitigation plan consists of the creation of wetlands, the enhancement of wetlands, and the preservation and donation of wetlands owned by Petitioner within the mosquito impoundment. The estimated cost of creation and enhancement of the mitigation plan is $600,000. Petitioner proposes to create approximately 14 acres of wetlands by removing the mosquito impoundment berms and converting other uplands within the impoundment to wetlands. These areas will be revegetated with various wetland plant species including red, black, and white mangroves. In addition, Petitioner proposes to create a forty foot wide intertidal littoral zone along the entire length of the western side of the artificial waterway and a ten foot wide littoral zone along the entire eastern side of the artificial waterway. Approximately three acres of the littoral zone will be created from uplands. The littoral zone will be revegetated with 80 percent cord grass and 20 percent red mangrove. Petitioner proposes to implement an open marsh mosquito control management program consisting of the elimination of natural accumulations of water in low lying areas within the impoundment by rotary ditching small channels to allow these areas to drain and to allow predator fish access to the areas. Petitioner will remove exotic plant species throughout the impoundment and will revegetate with native species such as red, black, and white mangroves. Petitioner proposes to monitor the project area to assure that exotic plant species do not re-colonize. The mosquito impoundment area and the associated berms is estimated as being approximately 105 acres. Because of the difficulty in determining the mean high water line and because of the number of breaches in the berms, the precise acreage within the impoundment area that is not currently sovereign lands was not established. If accurately surveyed, it is possible that the amount of acreage within the impoundment owned by Petitioner may be determined to be up to 10 percent less than is currently estimated. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is found that 105 acres is a reasonable estimate of the area of the impoundment owned by Petitioner. After completion of the enhancement program, Petitioner proposes to donate all the property it owns within the impoundment to the State of Florida. Petitioner asserts that it would have the right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River if this project is not permitted and that these docks would not be subject to Respondent's permitting jurisdiction. The construction of such docks would have an adverse impact on manatees and seagrasses. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner offers to waive its right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River. EVALUATION OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The wetland in the existing impoundment area is presently a good biological system that contains a good diversity of plants and animals. While Petitioner's proposals will enhance this area, the evaluation of that enhancement should take into consideration the quality of the existing system. There are at least three existing breaches in the berm system. Through these breaches there is some tidal influences and the export of detrital material. Because of the relatively isolated nature of the mosquito impoundment, it currently contributes little to the productivity of the Indian River. The removal of the berm system will result in greater tidal influence in the impoundment area. As a consequence, much of the leaf litter from mangroves within the impoundment that presently accumulates on site would be exported as detrital material to the Indian River, which will add material to the food chain. It is expected that increased tidal influence will also result in an improvement in the dissolved oxygen levels within the impoundment. The reestablishment of tidal influence within the impoundment area will increase habitat for fish, shrimp, and crabs, and therefore benefit the Indian River. Removal of the impoundment berms to reestablish tidal influences within the impoundment area will increase and improve feeding and forage habitat for wading birds. Consequently, wading birds that nest in the vicinity of the project will be benefited. Increased tidal influence will likely result in better growth for mangroves which would create roosting sites for wading birds where none presently exist. Currently, Australian pines are the dominate species in areas within the impoundment area. Other areas of the impoundment are heavily populated by Brazilian pepper. Australian pines and Brazilian peppers do not serve as food sources for any native wildlife and have the potential to crowd out native plant species such as mangroves. If not removed, the potential exists for Brazilian pepper to become the dominate plant species. Removal of exotics and replanting with native species is a benefit to the Indian River system. With an appropriate monitoring plan, the exotic removal should be successful. If the project is permitted, the implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Because of widespread mosquito control activities, the high marsh ecosystem is now rare in the Indian River system. The restoration of the impoundment area to an area of high marsh would be of benefit to the Indian River ecosystem. Prior to alteration by man, the mosquito impoundment was a high marsh ecosystem consisting primarily of black and white mangroves over an understory of succulent plants. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the Petitioner's proposals would result in the impoundment area returning to a high marsh area. While the impoundment area will be enhanced by the Petitioner's proposals, it is found that whether the area will be returned to a high marsh system is speculative. The mosquito impoundment is breached in various locations and, as a consequence, the impoundment is not functioning to control mosquitoes as it was originally designed. The current primary mechanism for mosquito control within the breached mosquito impoundment is aerial spraying of insecticides. The proposed removal of the existing berms will not adversely affect mosquito control and may positively affect mosquito control due to the increased accessibility of the impoundment by natural predators such as fish. This open marsh management plan is an effective means of controlling mosquitoes. The wetland creation proposed by Petitioner should have a high rate of success. Petitioner has agreed to implement a suitable monitoring plan to further guarantee the success of the proposal. If the project is permitted, the implementation of a suitable monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Scraping down the mosquito berms will create more wetlands, but the earth from the berms will be placed in the adjacent ditches, which presently serve as valuable tidal creek type habitat. Therefore, the mitigation itself will have some adverse impact. Petitioner's unspecified proposal to put in some rotary ditches to offset the loss of tidal creek habitat is inadequate in that there has been no specific proposal as to the location, size, shape, configuration, or acreage of the proposed rotary ditches. While planting of the littoral zones on the edges of the canal with Spartina provides some biological value, the growth of Spartina on the ten foot ledge on the east side will be impacted by boats and docks. The littoral zones will likely perform valuable wetland functions if properly planted and monitored and will likely become a productive wetland system that will provide habitat for wading birds. If the project is permitted, the Petitioner should be required to monitor the Spartina planting to ensure its successful growth. Even if the creation of the 13.9 acres of wetlands is successful, it will take years to become a mature biological system similar to the wetlands they are to replace. This time lag should be taken into account when evaluating the mitigation plan. There are adverse impacts from this proposed project that the mitigation plan does not offset. The mitigation plan does not offset the elimination of seagrasses, the loss of the Boot Lake habitat, the potential adverse impacts to shellfish and shellfishing, or the impacts to manatees. It is likely that property owners wishing to construct docks directly into the Indian River would have to get a permit from Respondent to gain access to the parts of the property where these docks could be constructed. Any proposal to extend docks into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge would likely be prevented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whether such docks would, or could, be constructed is speculative, and this portion of the mitigation plan should be accorded little weight. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner proposes to donate approximately 105 acres to the State of Florida. This is considered to be a favorable aspect of the mitigation plan. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the mitigation plan offsets the negative impacts of this project so that the project becomes "clearly in the public interest." This issue is resolved by finding that even when the mitigation plan and the conditions that are recommended herein are considered, this project is "not clearly in the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which denies the modified application for the subject project. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether proposed amendments to Rules 40C-4.041, 40C-4.051, 40C-4.091, 40C-41.011, 40C-41.023, 40C-41.033, 40C-41.043, 40C-41.051, and 40C-41.063, and the related revisions to the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as alleged by petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners in Case No. 97-0870RP, Consolidated-Tomoka Land Company; Indigo Development Group, Inc.; Indigo Group, Inc.; Indigo Group, Ltd.; Patricia Lagoni, as Trustee of Trust Nos. IDI-1, IDI-2 IDI-3 and IDI-4; Seaview Development Corporation; LeRoy E. Folsom; James S. Whiteside, Jr. and Joan W. Whiteside; Susan Spear Root; Susan R. Graham and Chapman J. Root, II, Trustees of the Chapman S. Root 1982 Living Trust; Daniel P. S. Paul, individually and as trustee of the Daniel P. S. Paul Charitable Remainder Trust; and Ava and Rufus, Inc. (petitioners), own real property within an area which will be affected by certain rules proposed by respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The District is authorized to adopt rules pursuant to Chapters 120 and 373, Florida Statutes. Petitioners in Case No. 97-0871RP, Samuel P. Bell, III and Anne Moorman-Reeves (petitioners), also own real property within an area affected by the proposed rules. Both groups of petitioners are substantially affected persons and thus have standing to inititate these rule challenges. Intervenor, Association of Florida Community Developers, Inc. (AFCD), is a not-for-profit corporation comprised of forty members, primarily developers. Its mission is to promote programs that encourage economic growth in Florida "through the responsible development of large-scale residential communities." Of its forty members, seven own property within the boundaries of the District and regularly apply for permits from the District for the development of large-scale residential or mixed-use developments and five regularly apply for permits on behalf of land owners. Only one member, however, Consolidated-Tomoka Land Company (Consolidated-Tomoka), which is already a party in Case No. 97-0870RP, owns property within the area affected by the proposed hydrologic basins. For the reasons cited in the Conclusions of Law, AFCD lacks standing to participate in this proceeding. The development of the proposed rules was formally initiated by the District in May 1994. At that time, the District began investigating the need for criteria including delineation of new hydrolgic basins, a recharge standard, water quality criteria, erosion and sediment control, a standard to limit drawdowns in wetlands, a special zone for the protection of habitat, and local government notification. After notice of rule development was published in October 1995, and several workshops were held, on January 17, 1997, the District published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intention to make certain revisions to Rules 40C- 4.041, 40C-4.051, 40C-4.091, 40C-41.011, 40C-41.023, 40C-41.033, 40C-41.043, 40C-41.051, and 41C-41.063, and related revisions to portions of a document known as the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (Handbook). On February 12, 1997, by a 5 to 3 vote, the District’s Governing Board formally proposed to adopt those rules, with two amendments. In broad terms, the new rules create two geographic areas of special concern and impose more stringent permitting standards and criteria for systems within those areas. Claiming that the proposed rules were invalid on a number of grounds, petitioners in Case Nos. 97-0870RP and 97- 0871RP initiated these proceedings by filing petitions on February 21 and 24, 1997, respectively. In petitions which include almost every statutory ground for invalidating a rule under Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1996), petitioners have first contended that Rules 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C- 41.023, 40C-41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 11.0(e), 11.5, 11.5(1), 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 18.1 and Appendix K, are invalid because they exceed the District’s grant of rulemaking authority. They also contend that Rules 40C-41.063(6)(a) and (d), and Handbook Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.4, and 18.1, are invalid because they enlarge the specific provisions of law implemented. They next contend that Rules 40C-4.051(7), 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C- 41.011, 40C-41.023, 40C-4.041(2)(b), 40C-41.051(2), 40C- 41.063(6)(a), (b) and (d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.5.2 and 11.5.4, are not supported by competent substantial evidence. They allege further that Rules 40C- 4.041(2)(b), 40C-4.051(7), 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C- 41.023, 40C-41.051(2), and 40C-41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.0(e), 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4, 18.1 and Appendix K are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners next contend that Rules 40C-4.041(2)(b) and 40C- 41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4 and 18.1, are invalid because their alternative lower cost proposal substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives purportedly being implemented through the proposed rules and revisions. Finally, petitioners assert that Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d) and Handbook Section 11.5.4(d) are invalid because they fail to establish adequate standards to guide, and vest unbridled discretion in, the District. As a corollary to these claims and in the event they prevail on any issue, petitioners have requested attorney’s fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, on the theory the District’s actions were not substantially justified and there are no special circumstances which would make an award to petitioners unjust. The Proposed Rules Generally The proposed rules affect two geographic areas within the District designated as the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basins. The former basin is located almost entirely in the northeastern portion of Volusia County and covers some 150 square miles. The latter basin is located in the southeastern portion of Volusia County and covers 94 square miles. Together, the two basins make up more than twenty percent of Volusia County, and they include parts of the Cities of Daytona Beach, Ormond Beach, and Port Orange. Although the Tomoka and Spruce Creek Rivers, which flow through the basins, were designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) on July 11, 1991, on balance, the water quality of both basins can only be characterized as fair. The Halifax River is a large estuarine system that lies north of the Indian River Lagoon and south of the Matanzas and Tolomato systems and parallel to the Atlantic Ocean. The Tomoka River Basin is at the northern end of the Halifax River, while the Spruce Creek Basin is at the southern end. The Halifax River connects with the Atlantic Ocean in only one place, Ponce Inlet, which is between the proposed basins. Because of this single connection, the estuary is a very low energy system due to minimal wave action, and the system is dependent on the basins that drain into the Halifax River. Thus, the water resources and the integrated components of habitat of the proposed basins are critical to the overall health and biological diversity for the entire region. The District regulates and controls the management and storage of surface waters through its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program, which has district-wide application. There are two types of permits relevant to these proceedings: stormwater and ERPs. The former permit is designed for smaller residential or commercial developments and primarily protects against the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality. An ERP is required for larger systems and covers a broad range of issues including water quality, water quantity, and biological concerns. Criteria for the issuance of individual and conceptual approval permits for systems which meet certain thresholds are found in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code, while additional standards and criteria (over and above those found in Chapter 40C-4) for systems within specified designated areas of special concern are found in Chapter 40C-41, Florida Administrative Code. Such areas of special concern contain more stringent regulatory criteria, and they are designed to address specific problems in given areas where high quality resources need special protection, or rapid development adversely affects the water resources. In addition, by Rule 40C-4.091, the District has adopted and incorporated by reference a document known as the "Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters" (Handbook) which "provides applicants, potential applicants, and others who are interested, with information regarding the permitting program for the regulation of surface water management systems under Chapters 40C-4, 40C-40, 40C-41, and 40C-400, F.A.C." This controversy involves a challenge, on numerous grounds, to proposed revisions to all or parts of three rules in Chapter 40C-4, six rules in Chapter 40C-41, and a number of related revisions in the Handbook. Chapter 40C-4 and the Handbook 10. Proposed Rules 40C-4.041(2) and 40C-4.043(1), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1 and 11.0, establish the new basins and make them subject to the provisions of Chapters 40C-4 and 40C-41 and the Handbook. The proposed basins are made up of smaller drainage basins associated with the tributaries to the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. Besides the two new basins, the District has already established at least five other areas of special concern (basins) within its boundaries. Under current Chapter 40C-4, an ERP is required for the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment, or removal of a surface water management system which serves projects with a total land area of 40 or more acres, provides for the placement of 12 or more acres of impervious surface, or has any wetland impact. Smaller projects need only obtain a stormwater permit from the District. By proposed amendments to Rules 40C-4.041(2)(b)3., 6. and (g), and Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f) and 11.0(e) of the Handbook, these thresholds within the two basins are reduced to 10 acres and 2 acres, respectively. Thus, if the revisions become effective, some projects which now qualify for stormwater permits will require a general ERP. It follows that any projects not exceeding these thresholds are exempt from permitting requirements. New provisions relative to exemptions from the permitting thresholds are found in Rule 40C-4.051(7) while the legal description of the two basins is found in Rule 40C- 4.091(1)(a) and Appendix K of the Handbook. Exempted from the permitting thresholds are those systems which meet the conditions for exemption set forth in subsection (2) of the rule, and systems "which consist of public road shoulder paving, outside the Riparian Habitat Protection Zone, which do not result in the creation of additional traffic lanes, and systems which consist of public turn lane construction outside the Riparian Habitat Protection Zone." In addition, related revisions to Sections 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4 and 18.1 of the Handbook add four special basin "standards and design criteria" to the current District requirements. These are extra permitting standards that must be met in addition to standards contained in the District’s ERP rules. Three of the criteria are engineering related while the fourth creates a Riparian Habitat Protection Zone (RHPZ) along the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. The same criteria now apply in the Econlockhatchee River and Wekiva River Hydrologic Basins, two other designated areas of special concern. Section 11.5.1 imposes a new "recharge standard" which requires ERP permittees to retain within the Most Effective Recharge Area (MERA) three inches of runoff from the directly connected impervious surface area. MERAs are defined as areas with Type A soils. There is no requirement under existing rules that stormwater and ERP permittees retain runoff for recharge purposes. Current standards require that a system not cause a net reduction in flood storage within a 10-year floodplain. Under proposed Section 11.5.2 of the Handbook, a system within the basins must not cause a net reduction in flood storage within the 100-year floodplain. The proposed stormwater management standard in Section prohibits the use of certain stormwater treatment methodologies, such as the use of detention with filtration systems, based upon the size of the system. Current District rules contain no such size-based restrictions. In Section 11.5.4, the District proposes to establish RHPZs along the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. These RHPZs extend a minimum of 275, 320 or 550 feet landward from the waterward edge of the wetlands adjacent to the defined portions of each watercourse. For example, if the adjacent wetlands extend 400 feet landward of the water’s edge in an area where the rule defines an RHPZ width as 550 feet, 150 feet of uplands landward of the landward extent of the wetlands would be included in the RHPZ at that site. The RHPZ also includes a minimum 50- foot upland component. The RHPZ standard also provides that development within a designated RHPZ is presumed to adversely affect the abundance, food sources, or habitat of aquatic or wetland dependent species in the RHPZ. An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by demonstrating that the "overall merits" of the proposed development offset the adverse impacts. Chapter 40C-41 Existing Chapter 40C-41 designates five geographic areas of special concern and establishes additional criteria and standards for systems constructed within those areas. By amendments to Rules 40C-41.011, 40C-41.023(5), 40C-41.033 and 40C-41.043(1), the District proposes to add the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basins as new geographic areas of special concern. By changes to Rule 40C-41.063(6)(a)-(d), the District has also proposed to codify the previously described recharge standard, 100-year floodplain standard, stormwater management standards and RHPZ as special requirements for systems constructed within the basins. As specific authority for adopting the proposed rules, the District has cited, in varying combinations, Sections 120.54(8), 373.044, 373.046(4), 373.113, 373.118, 373.171, 373.406, 373.413, 373.415, 373.416, 373.418, and 373.421(2), Florida Statutes. It also cites, in various combinations, Sections 120.54(8), 373.046, 373.118, 373.409, 373.413, 373.4135, 373.414, 373.415, 373.416, 373.421(2)-(6), 373.426, and 373.429, Florida Statutes, as the laws being implemented. Do the Rules Exceed the Agency’s Grant of Rulemaking Authority? Petitioners first contend that Rules 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C-41.023 and 40C-41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 11.0(e), 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4, 18.1 and Appendix K exceed the agency’s grant of rulemaking authority. The challenged rules and sections generally fall into two broad categories: (1) the establishment of the new basins and their legal descriptions, and (2) the establishment of new basin criteria. Proposed Rules 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011 and 40C- 41.023(5), and Sections 3.3.1, 11.0(e), 11.5 and Appendix K, fall into the first category while Rule 40C-41.063(6) and Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4 and 18.1 fall into the latter. In adopting the rules and sections pertaining to the new basins and their respective boundaries, the District has relied upon Sections 120.54(8), 373.044, 373.046(4), 373.113, 373.171, 373.415, 373.418, and 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for adopting the rules. In adopting the new basin criteria, the District relies upon Sections 120.54(8), 373.044, 373.046(4), 373.113, 373.171, 373.415, 373.418 and 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority. For the reasons given in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Order, the challenged rules and sections exceed the District’s rulemaking authority and are thus an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Do the Rules Enlarge the Specific Provisions of Law Implemented? Petitioners next allege that Rule 40C-41.063(6)(a) and (d) and Handbook Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.4 and 18.1 are invalid because they enlarge the specific provisions of law implemented. Paragraph (6)(a) of the rule and Sections 11.5.1 and 18.1 propose to adopt the recharge standard while paragraph (6)(d) and Section establish the new RHPZs. The law being implemented for both standards is Sections 373.413, 373.414, 373.416 and 373.426, Florida Statutes. Section 373.413 provides that the District "may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration" of a system "will not be harmful to the water resources of the district." Similarly, Section 373.416 authorizes the District to require permits on reasonable conditions necessary to assure that the operation and maintenance of the system "will not be harmful to the water resources of the district." Section 373.414 authorizes the District to require applicants to provide "reasonable assurance" that state water quality standards will not be violated. Finally, Section 373.426 protects "the water resources of the district" from improper abandonment or removal of surface water management systems. The statutes being implemented do not refer to a recharge standard or RHPZ. Neither do they refer to any "particular" program or duty which would authorize these rules. Therefore, Rule 40C-063(6)(a) and (d) and Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.4 and 18.1 enlarge the law being implemented and thus are invalid. Are the Rules Arbitrary and Capricious? Petitioners next contend that Rules 40C-4.041(2)(b), 40C-4.051(7), 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C-41.023, 40C- 41.051(2) and 40C-41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.0(e), 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4, and Appendix K are arbitrary and capricious. These rules and sections pertain to the proposed basin designation and boundaries, threshold revisions, and exemptions. A determination as to whether the rules and sections are supported by fact and logic is set forth below below. Basins The establishment of two new hydrologic basins is based on the District’s concern to protect the water resources within these areas from the affects of growth, new homes and related infrastructure being built in the area. That is to say, additional resource protections are necessary in the proposed basins due to development pressure. While the parties have sharply disagreed over the extent, if any, of development pressure, it is noted that the coastal areas of Volusia County to the east of the proposed basins are already intensely developed. It can be reasonably expected that the population pressure in those areas will lead to increased development in the proposed basins. In addition, there has already been significant permitting activity in the proposed basins, and the number of binding wetland determinations issued by the District (for future five-year periods of time) indicate future development. It is true, as petitioners assert, that Volusia County’s population grew only 8.7 percent from 1990-1995, or less than the statewide average growth rate of 9.7 percent for the same time period, and that its growth rate is less than many other counties within the District. The evidence shows, however, that by the year 2010, Volusia County’s population is expected to increase by 115,530 people, not an insignificant number. At the same time, there is a concentration of numerous Floridan aquifer wellfields within or adjacent to the new basins. Increased water withdrawals from those wellfields will cause adverse impacts. The coastal communities of Volusia County, who are the primary users of water, project an increase in the need for water by the year 2010 of between 60 percent to 100 percent. Finally, development leads to compacted soils, an increase in impervious surfaces and a loss of habitat for aquatic and wetland dependent species. These result in increased runoff rates, with related higher volumes and rates of stormwater runoff. Also, they cause the introduction of stormwater pollutants such as fuels, oils, heavy metals, fertilizers and pesticide into the water. The establishment of new basins addresses these concerns. Given these considerations, it is found that the designation of the basins as areas of special concern is not without logic or reason. The fact that the basin boundaries had not been separately drawn, or used for planning purposes, by the District prior to May 1994 does not detract from this finding. Therefore, Rules 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011 and 40C-41.023, and Handbook Sections 3.3.1 (c) and (f), 11.0(e), 11.5 and Appendix K are not arbitrary or capricous. Recharge standard Rule 40C-41.063(6)(a) and Section 11.5.1 of the Handbook require in part that "[p]rojects, or portions of projects, in the Most Effective Recharge Areas must retain three inches of runoff from the directly connected impervious area within the Most Effective Recharge Area of the project." In addition, Section 18.1 contains a list of Type A soils for Flagler and Volusia Counties to determine whether a proposed project is in the Most Effective Recharge Area. Petitioners contend there is no rational basis for imposing this more stringent permitting criterion. In response to this objection, the District established that the proposed basins are within an area of recharge for the Floridan aquifer. Rainfall is the sole source of freshwater recharge for the Floridan and surficial aquifer systems. In other words, rainfall percolates into the ground and recharges the surficial aquifer which in turn recharges the Floridan aquifer. As noted earlier, the coastal communities of Volusia County have projected an increase of at least 60 percent in the need for water by the year 2010. While there is no direct evidential correlation between water supply demand and population growth, it can be reasonably inferred that the population increase of more than 115,000 persons by the year 2010 will likewise increase the demand for water. As water withdrawals from existing wellfields increase, saltwater intrusion can reasonably be expected to occur in greater proportions. Saltwater intrusion has the effect of contaminating the Floridan aquifer and lowering the surficial aquifer, both of which impact wetland communities and the base flow of streams. To the extent that recharge is diminished, the problems associated with those water withdrawals will be exacerbated. Type A soil, to which the recharge standard applies, has the highest infiltration rate. When impervious surfaces (over Type A soils) are directly connected to a stormwater pond, the rainfall will have an opportunity to percolate into the soil. Through the use of recognized "curve" numbers and historical rainfall data in the vicinity of the proposed basins, the District established that the retention of three inches of runoff in Type A soils should result in post-development recharge approximating pre-development recharge. In view of the above, and the fact that existing ERP, OFW and management of storage of stormwater requirements are not sufficient to provide for equivalent retention of stormwater for recharge purposes, the recharge standard has a rational basis. Therefore, Rule 40C-41.063(6)(a) and Handbook Sections 11.5.1 and 18.1 are not arbitrary and capricious. Floodplain storage criteria Rule 40C-41.063(6)(b) and Handbook Section 11.5.2 establish new floodplain storage criteria for systems in the two basins or any of their tributaries. More specifically, they provide that a system "may not cause a net reduction in flood storage within the 100-year floodplain" of the two basins. Currently, this "no net reduction" standard applies only to development within the 10-year floodplain. The parties agree that flooding has occurred within the boundaries of the new basins. Two factors which affect flooding are excessive runoff and inadequate floodplain storage. The size of a project and the amount of impervious surface are directly related to the amount of runoff generated. The amount of runoff affects flooding conditions in downstream areas. The District also established that fill results in the loss of floodplain storage. The loss of floodplain storage in one area will increase flood elevations in other areas, both upstream and downstream from where the loss of floodplain storage occurs. Compensating storage provides storage volume to make up for the fill that is placed in the floodplain. The new standard requires that systems within the basins must not cause a net reduction in flood storage within the 100-year floodplain. Thus, if an applicant proposes to construct a system which reduces the floodplain’s storage capacity, the applicant will be required to compensate for the lost storage capacity, thereby preventing an increase in flood elevation. Even petitioners’ expert witness Harper agreed that the rule’s objective is a "worthwhile goal." Given these considerations, it is found that the floodplain storage standard is supported by logic and reason, and Rule 40C-41.063(6)(b) and Handbook Section 11.5.2 are not arbitrary and capricious. Stormwater management standard Proposed Rule 40C-41.063(6)(c) and Handbook Section provide generally that when constructing new stormwater management systems which serve drainage areas in excess of 10 acres, an applicant cannot use detention with filtration as the sole stormwater methodology. They also provide that when retention systems are not feasible due to limited percolation capacity, "wet detention treatment or other treatment demonstrated to be equivalent to retention or wet detention . . . must be used." Under current standards, applicants may choose the type and location of stormwater treatment ponds. Thus, instead of locating a detention pond in an area of high filtration, an applicant can choose to locate the detention in an area of low filtration thereby discharging the stormwater to surface waters. The evidence shows that detention with filtration systems fail after a relatively short period of time because pollutants clog the filters that remove them. Once filters clog, water does not filter and the pond does not function as designed. Malfunctioning detention with filtration systems can cause localized water quality violations. The new standard curtails the use of detention with filtration. The evidence further shows that the Tomoka River has moderately elevated levels of nitrogen and elevated levels of total phosphorus. The water quality in Spruce Creek is similar with even higher levels of total phosphorus. Because detention with filtration systems is an ineffective way to remove nitrogen, dissolved phosphorus, and dissolved metals, the receiving water bodies will be improved if the less effective detention of filtration systems is eliminated. The new standard will achieve this goal. Even petitioners’ expert witness Harper acknowledged that the detention with filtration method is a poor stormwater management technique. Based upon the foregoing considerations, it is found that the stormwater management standard is based on logic and reason, and Rule 40C-41.063(6)(c) and Handbook Section 11.5.3 are not arbitrary and capricious, as alleged by petitioners. Riparian Habitat Protection Zone Proposed Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d) and Handbook Section establish an RHPZ along the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. These new zones provide additional protection over and above that provided under the existing ERP program. As noted earlier, these zones extend a minimum of 275, 320, or 550 feet landward from the waterward edge of the wetlands adjacent to the defined portions of each water course, and they include a minimum 50-foot upland component. The rule and section presume that certain activities within the zones will "adversely affect the abundance, food sources, or habitat of aquatic or wetland dependent species provided by (the) Zone," and to overcome this presumption, an applicant must demonstrate "that the overall merits of the proposed plan of development, including mitigation as described in section 12.3 . . . provide a degree of resource protection . . which offsets adverse effects of the proposed system on the uplands and wetlands within the Zone." Finally, the rule and section provide that "[s]ome reasonable use of the land within the Protection Zone can be allowed." The record contains sharply conflicting testimony regarding the logic and reason for the zones, and the parties have devoted substantial portions of their proposed findings of fact to address this issue. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this evidence is embodied in the findings below. To begin with, similar RHPZs already exist in the Econlockhatchee and Wekiva River Hydrologic Basins, two other geographic areas of special concern. Like the existing RHPZs, the purpose of the new RHPZs is to protect the riparian wetland and upland areas which are necessary to sustain viable populations of aquatic or wetland dependent species. The Tomoka River and Spruce Creek systems are important and critical for the wildlife and overall ecology of eastern Volusia and Flagler Counties. The riparian habitat along the two systems consist of estuarine saltwater marsh, forested wetlands, including cypress and hardwood, freshwater marsh, hammocks, flatwoods, and sandhills. Aquatic and wetland dependent species need a combination of these riparian habitats for feeding, breeding, and nesting. These species are an integral component of the water resources. There is a critical relationship among the biotic components of the water resources such as the living plants and animals. Interdependent relationships exist between all of these components, and if one component is not present, the overall balance and health of the water resource is adversely impacted. Similarly, the entire food chain is impacted by the loss of an aquatic or wetland dependent species from the aquatic or wetland system. The proposed RHPZ widths are based on, and related to, the spatial needs of species rather than a specific width of wetlands and uplands. Spatial requirement is the area an animal needs to perform all of its life functions, such as foraging, breeding, denning, and nesting, without harassment or any kind of detriment in order to maintain a viable population. All experts agree that, in order to sustain a viable population, 50 to 500 individuals must be maintained. Current ERP rules do not provide for this degree of protection for these spatial requirements. Spatial requirement is determined by two methods. One method is to determine the distance for which a species is sensitive to disturbance when it is feeding or nesting. For example, if a species is intolerant to humans and would require a distance of 200 feet away from humans, then that would be the spatial requirement of that species. A second method is to determine a species’ home range requirement. Home range is the area within which a species moves in order to obtain requirements to help sustain life, such as food. For those species for which no data in the literature exists regarding spatial requirements, a technique known as "guilding" is used to group species based upon their nesting and feeding zones. The proposed 550-foot RHPZ width addresses the spatial needs for a majority of aquatic and wetland dependent species in cypress and hardwood swamps. In the salt marshes, the 320-foot width satisfies the spatial needs of a majority of the species. Where the river narrows and the canopy covers the riverbed, there is a uniform habitat not separated by the water body. Therefore, a 275-foot RHPZ straddling the river provides the 550-foot width necessary to maintain viable populations. Under current rules, in order to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, an applicant may propose a buffer with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet between the wetland and the system being proposed in order to address the secondary impacts to the habitat of wetlands. This buffer essentially acts as a cushion around the wetlands to protect the wetland habitat from adjacent wetland development. If the wetland is used by a listed species, then additional measures may be required in order to protect the nesting, denning or critical feeding habitat of that species in the wetland. Listed species, however, do not include all aquatic and wetland dependent species, and they include only those that are classified as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The new 50-foot upland component will be applied in areas where the wetlands extend beyond the appropriate 550, 320 and 275-foot widths. This extension is necessary and appropriate because the existing rules are designed to protect the intrinsic value of wetland habitat. They do not, however, include protection of the intrinsic value of upland habitat, which is used, for example, by frogs and turtles. In addition, existing rules do not protect upland foraging areas or wildlife corridors except for those limited areas needed for ingress and egress to the nest from the wetland. Finally, most aquatic and wetland dependent species are not a listed species, and thus they receive no upland habitat protection under existing ERP rules. In contrast, the new rule provides protection for spatial needs of all aquatic and wetland dependent species and their use of uplands for foraging, breeding, and nesting. While there are some flaws in the analyses used by the District to justify the zones, collectively there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence found in the Center for Wetlands Study, the 1990 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council report, detailed ground and air investigations, the District’s regulatory experience, and its permitting experience with basin rules in the Wekiva and Econlockhatchee Basins, which have similar RHPZ dimensions, to support a finding that the rule and section are based on logic and reason. Therefore, Rule 40C- 41.063(6)(d) and Handbook Section 11.5.4 are not arbitrary or capricious. Exemptions Proposed revisions to Rules 40C-4.051(7) and 40C- 41.051(2) exempt from permitting requirements projects which are less than 10 acres in size and of less than 2 acres of impervious surface. Also exempted are single family dwelling units not a part of a larger common plan of development or sale, public road shoulder paving, and systems that qualify for a noticed general permit. In their objection, petitioners have contended that there is no rational basis for exempting these activities, and that in proposing the rules, the District failed to consider the cumulative impacts of these exempt activities. In responding to these objections, the District established that exempt projects are not expected to comprise a large number of permit applications for the basins. Accordingly, such projects will not individually or cumulatively significantly exacerbate flooding problems. From a water quantity standpoint, exempt projects will have a relatively minimal impact, while water quality standards will be preserved through the stormwater permitting program. As to fish and wildlife issues, exempted projects will likewise have a relatively minimal impact. With respect to exemptions for public road shoulder paving, single family dwelling units, and systems that qualify for a noticed general permit, these projects are so small that they are not likely to have a significant adverse impact, either individually or cumulatively. Economic considerations regarding hardships played a role in the District’s decision to exempt projects under the 10- acre threshold. More specifically, criteria designed for larger parcels of land cannot be reasonably applied to small, subthreshold projects without the property owner enduring difficulty and severe hardship. Thus, the 10-acre threshold was chosen as a balance between water resource protection and providing flexibility in project sizes to accomplish project development. Because smaller projects will not need to meet the 25-year, 24-hour water quantity ERP attenuation requirement, land will be saved, and the project designer will have more flexibility when designing a project that is exempted from ERP thresholds. Finally, the District’s stated purpose of not placing an unnecessary burden on citizens attempting to develop small projects is a sound, rational basis for creating the exemptions. Accordingly, Rules 40C-4.051(7) and 40C-41.051(2) are founded on logic and reason, and they are not arbitrary and capricious. Are the Rules Supported by Competent Substantial Evidence? As a corollary to the arbitrary and capricious allegation, petitioners further contend that proposed Rules 40C- 4.041(2)(b), 40C-4.051(7), 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C- 41.023, 40C-41.051(2) and 40C-41.063(6)(a), (b) and (d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.0(e), 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.4, 18.1 and Appendix K are not supported by competent substantial evidence. In other words, they contend that the underlying factual predicate for the foregoing rules is unreliable, undependable, or untrustworthy. For the reasons cited in the findings in paragraphs 28- 63 it is found that the factual underpinning for Rules 40C- 4.041(2)(b), 40C-4.051(7), 40C-4.091(1)(a), 40C-41.011, 40C- 4.023, 40C-41.051(2) and 40C-41.063(a), (b) and (d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.0(e), 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.4, 18.1 and Appendix K is sufficiently reliable, dependable and trustworthy so as to constitute competent substantial evidential support for their proposed adoption. Do Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d) and Handbook Section 11.5.4(d) Vest Unbridled Discretion in, and Contain Inadequate Standards to Guide, the District? Petitioners next argue that Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d) and Section 11.5.4(d) of the Handbook are invalid because they fail to establish adequate standards to guide the agency’s determination, and they vest unbridled discretion in the District to make certain determinations. A contention made in the initial petitions that the same rule and section are vague has presumably been abandoned since this ground is not cited in the prehearing stipulation or petitioners’ proposed orders. Subparagraph (6)(d)1. of the challenged rule and paragraph (a) of the section specify that, for those development activities which involve the "construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system" within the RHPZ, an applicant "must provide reasonable assurance" that the system "will not adversely affect the abundance, diversity, food sources or habitat (including its use to satisfy nesting, breeding, and resting needs) of aquatic or wetland dependent species." In subparagraph (6)(d)2. and paragraph (b) of the rule and section, it is "presumed" that the following activities will "adversely affect the abundance, food sources, or habitat of aquatic or wetland dependent species provided by the Zone: construction of buildings, golf courses, impoundments, roads, canals, ditches, swales, and any land clearing which results in the creation of a system." Under subparagraph (d)4. and paragraph (d) of the rule and section, the presumption may be satisfied by an applicant demonstrating that the overall merits of the proposed plan of development, including mitigation as described in section 12.3, Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters, provide a degree of resource protection to these types of fish and wildlife which offsets adverse effects of the proposed system on the uplands and wetlands within the zone. Some reasonable use of the land within the protection zone can be allowed under this section. Therefore, the presumption can be rebutted through considerations of subparagraph 6(d)4. and paragraph (d). As explained by the District, the term "overall merits" means that, in the review of the permit application, all of the impacts of the site plan to the surface water resource by the construction of the system will be reviewed. In other words, the District will review the "overall merits" of a system by balancing any detrimental impacts within the RHPZ with beneficial environmental aspects of the plan. The goal, of course, is to achieve a project design whose merits allow a development to proceed and also protect the beneficial functions of the RHPZ. For example, in areas of the development that are not proposed for development, the applicant can provide an ecological benefit by restoring or enhancing functions to a portion of the RHPZ. Where there are areas outside the RHPZ that would add further beneficial functions to aquatic or wetland dependent species, those areas could be set aside and incorporated into an overall protection plan that would be part of the site plan. The District will apply the new "overall merits" standard in a permitting scenario similar to the manner in which the current Wekiva and Econlockhatchee River Basin standards are now being applied. In those hydrologic basins, similar standards, including the "overall merits" criterion, have been applied by the District for a number of years without difficulty, and numerous activities have been authorized within their respective RHPZs. In fact, District records show that only two permits for activities within those basins have ever been denied, while more than 560 permits have been issued since the establishment of the two basins. Further assistance and clarification are found in the mitigation provisions in section 12.3 of the Handbook, which contains fifteen pages of guidance. Both the rule and section specifically provide that "mitigation as described in section 12.3" may be utilized by an applicant in meeting this standard. This provision enables an applicant to offset adverse impacts to the abundance, food sources, and habitat of aquatic or wetland dependent species within the RHPZ by proposing mitigation alternatives described therein. Petitioners contend that these mitigation alternatives are impractical since they do not allow for mitigating upland impacts and that section 12.3 now applies only to the Econlockhatchee and Wekiva River Basins. However, the District established that the use of the techniques described in Section 12.3 will be extended to the two new basins. As to the mitigation of upland impacts, Section 12.3.2.2(d) specifically refers to upland preservation as a mitigation option. It is also noteworthy that petitioners’ expert witness Exum conceded that he has utilized, without difficulty or misunderstanding, the same provisions when processing applications for permits in the Econlockhatchee and Wekiva Basins. Therefore, there are adequate standards within the rule and section to guide the District’s determination of the "overall merits" of an applicant’s proposed development plan. Likewise, that portion of the rule and section do not vest unbridled discretion in the District to determine whether an applicant has rebutted the presumption created by the standard. Petitioners next contend that the provision in Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d)4. and Section 11.5.4(d) which allows an applicant to make "some reasonable use of the land within the Protection Zone" contains inadequate standards and places unbridled discretion in the District. This provision, however, is found to be reasonably specific, given the fact that the amount of development which can be permitted can only be determined on a case-by-case basis after the District considers the specific nature of the unique characteristics of the site, including the proposed development, and the type of water resources that are adversely affected by the development. To establish a fixed percentage of development that would be permissible would be arbitrary. Moreover, the same provision has been fairly applied for a number of years in two other basins, and petitioners’ experts have successfully dealt with this issue without difficulty. Therefore, this portion of the rule and section contains adequate standards and does not vest unbridled discretion in the District. Finally, petitioners contend that the same rule and section vest unbridled discretion in the District to determine what is an "aquatic or wetland dependent species." The evidence shows, however, that petitioners’ witnesses Exum and Godly were aware of the meaning of this term of art, and they had a common understanding of its meaning. Further detail or definition of the term is unnecessary. Therefore, that portion of the rule and section does not vest unbridled discretion in the District. Whether Petitioners’ Lower Cost Proposal Substantially Meets the Statutory Objectives Being Implemented? The District prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) for the proposed rules, as required by Sections 120.54(3)(b)1. and 120.541, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). A summary of the SERC was published with the proposed rules on January 17, 1997, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On February 6, 1997, Consolidated-Tomoka, but no other petitioners, timely submitted to the District a good faith, lower cost, regulatory alternative to the proposed rules. The District rejected this alternative proposal and provided a statement of its reasons for doing so. The parties have stipulated that the alternative would impose less regulatory costs on petitioners than are imposed by the proposed threshold revisions, recharge standard, floodplain storage criteria, stormwater management standard, and Riparian Wildlife Habitat Zone. Consolidated-Tomoka, joined in by all other petitioners, next contend that Rules 40C-4.041(2)(b) and 40C- 41.063(6)(a)-(d), and Handbook Sections 3.3.1(c) and (f), 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.5.4, and 18.1, are invalid because the alternative cost proposal substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives purportedly being implemented through the proposed rules. More specifically, they contend that the current District rules, along with the existing OFW designation of Spruce Creek and the Tomoka River, already provide adequate protection to the water quality and quantity within the proposed basins, and thus the existing rules accomplish the same statutory objectives at a lower cost to petitioners. The proposed revisions to Rule 40C-041(2)(b) and Section 3.3.1(c) and (f) provide that non-exempt systems within the two new basins will be subject to the threshold revisions contained in the rule and section. Thus, they will bring into the ERP regulatory framework projects that now otherwise require only a stormwater permit under Chapter 40C-42. These projects now contribute to flooding and will continue to do so in the future absent a rule change. Because petitioners proposed alternative (of adopting no rule) does nothing to address the flooding caused by these projects, it does not substantially accomplish the statutory objective of protecting water resources. The statutory objective of the proposed recharge standard in Rule 40C-41.063(6)(a) and Sections 11.5.1 and 18.1 is to protect the District’s water resources by replacing groundwater withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer for public consumption with potable freshwater from rainfall. The evidence supports a finding that a need for recharge exists, and petitioners’ own expert agreed that recharge is necessary to maintain groundwater supplies. The alternative that no rule be adopted does not advance the statutory goal of protecting water resources. The statutory objective being implemented by the proposed floodplain storage standard in Rule 40C-41.063(6)(b) and Section 11.5.2 is the protection of water resources by reducing flooding. Under current conditions, flooding problems occur, and existing rules only address floodplain storage for the 10-year floodplain. The new criterion will prevent a decrease in floodplain storage in the 100-year floodplain. This in turn removes the loss of floodplain storage as a cause of flooding, thereby accomplishing the statutory goal. The new standard will ensure that future development will maintain more floodplain storage than is maintained under existing rules and thus create less future flooding potential. The proposal that no standard be adopted does not accomplish this objective. The proposed stormwater management standard in Rule 40C-41.063(6)(d)(c) and Section 11.5.3 implements the District’s statutory objective of protecting the water resources by minimizing the impact of malfunctioning detention with filtration systems on the OFWs in the proposed basins that receive discharges from such systems. Existing regulations allow systems within the proposed basins to utilize detention with filtration systems. Petitioners’ proposal does not prevent this from occurring or address the statutory objective of the law being implemented. Therefore, it is not an appropriate alternative. Finally, as to the RHPZ standard in Rule 40C- 41.063(6)(d) and Section 11.5.4, petitioners contend that the District’s current buffer requirements are sufficient to protect upland habitat utilized by wetland dependent species. They also contend that the establishment of the RHPZ exceeds the District’s delegated legislative authority and thus there is no statutory objective to be implemented. Finally, they argue that the establishment of the RHPZ will not lead to any significant enhancement of the water quality in Spruce Creek or the Tomoka River. As to this proposed standard, the District’s statutory objective is to protect water resources from harm. Aquatic or wetland dependent species are, of course, an integral component of the water resources. If urbanization pressures continue, the two basins will lose valuable habitat for aquatic or wetland species. Current ERP rules do not provide for the protection of the spatial requirements of aquatic and wetland dependent species, such as habitat and food sources, in order to maintain viable populations. Indeed, the current buffer merely provides a cushion to the wetland from the upland development, and it is not designed to maintain nesting habitat for those species. Moreover, current rules only protect the uplands for species that are listed and that use uplands for nesting and denning. Unlisted species receive no protection, and even listed species are not provided habitat necessary to maintain other life functions such as foraging. Therefore, a no-rule alternative does not substantially accomplish the statutory objective of preventing harm to water resources, including the aquatic or wetland dependent species. As noted in paragraph 23, the proposed standard exceeds the District's rulemaking authority. For the reasons cited in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Order, however, this does not mean that the rule cannot substantially accomplish the statutory objective. Therefore, the contention that the prior determination of invalidity mandates a similar determination here is without merit. Finally, as to the contention that the new standard will not lead to any significant enhancement of the water quality, the evidence shows that the standard is not intended to enhance water quality in the streams, and thus the argument is irrelevant.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., is entitled to a environmental resource permit for the construction of a wooden footbridge over the Estero River east of U.S. Route 41 and authorization to obtain by easement a right to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc. (Koreshan) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the Koreshan heritage. Koreshan derives its heritage from a largely self-sufficient community that occupied land in south Lee County. For several years, Koreshan has owned a parcel of 14.56 acres at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 41 and the Estero River. This parcel is bounded on the south by Corkscrew Road and contains an amphitheater and historical house, midway between the river and Corkscrew Road. The south end of this parcel contains a museum and parking area with access to Corkscrew Road. The approximate dimensions of the 14.56-acre parcel are 544 feet along the river, 496 feet along Corkscrew Road, and about 1273 feet along the west and the east property lines. The west property line is U.S. Route 41. The right-of-way for U.S. Route 41 is wider at the southern two-thirds of the parcel than the northern one-third of the parcel. A sidewalk runs on the east side of U.S. Route 41 from north of the river, across the U.S. Route 41 bridge, along the west boundary of Koreshan's property, at least to an entrance near the middle of the 14.56-acre parcel. In October 1996, Koreshan acquired 8.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route 41 and the river. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide parking for persons coming to Koreshan-sponsored events, such as music performances, at the 14.56-acre site. Koreshan rents a small portion of this northerly parcel to a canoe-rental business, which operates where the bridge and river meet. To assist their visitors-some of whom are elderly and disabled--in gaining access to the 14.56-acre site, on November 26, 1996, Koreshan filed an application for a permit and authorization to construct a wooden footbridge across the Estero River about 315 feet east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. The source of the Estero River is to the east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge and the location of the proposed bridge. After passing under the U.S. Route 41 bridge, the river runs along the Koreshan state park, which is a short distance east of U.S. Route 41, before it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Estero Bay, which is a state aquatic preserve. The portion of the river at the site of the proposed bridge is an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW) and a Class III water. The river is popular with canoeists and kayakers. Persons may rent canoes and kayaks at the canoe rental business operating on the 8.5-acre parcel or the Koreshan state park. Although most canoeists and kayakers proceed downstream toward the bay, a significant number go upstream past the U.S. Route 41 bridge. Upstream of the bridge, the river narrows considerably. Tidal currents reach upstream of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. At certain tides or in strong winds, navigating a canoe or kayak in this area of the river can be moderately difficult. Even experienced canoeists or kayakers may have trouble maintaining a steady course in this part of the river. Less experienced canoeists or kayakers more often have trouble staying on course and avoiding other boats, the shore, vegetation extending from the water or shoreline, or even the relatively widely spaced supports of the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are about 30 feet apart. Mean high water is at 1.11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The deck of the proposed footbridge would be 9 feet, 6 inches wide from rail to rail and 16 feet wide in total. The proposed footbridge would extend about 180 feet, spanning 84 feet of water from shore to shore. The bridge- ends would each be about 50 feet and would each slope at a rate of 1:12. The proposed footbridge would rest on nine pilings: four in the uplands and five in the submerged bottom. The elevation of the bottom of the footbridge from the water surface, at mean high water, would be 8 feet, 8 inches. The distance between the centers of the pilings would be 14 feet, and each piling would be of a minimum diameter of 8 inches. According to a special permit condition, the pilings would be treated with chromated copper arsenate, as a preservative, but they would be wrapped in impermeable plastic or PVC sleeves so as, in the words of the proposed permit, "to reduce the leaching of deleterious substances from the pilings." The proposed permit requires that the sleeves shall be installed from at least 6 inches below the level of the substrate to at least 1 foot above the seasonal highwater line and shall be maintained over the life of the facility. The proposed permit also requires that the footbridge be limited to pedestrian traffic only, except for wheelchairs. The permit requires the applicant to install concrete-filled steel posts adjacent to the bridge to prevent vehicles from using the bridge. The proposed permit requires that Koreshan grant a conservation easement for the entire riverbank running along both shorelines of Koreshan's two parcels, except for the dock and boat ramp used by the canoe-rental business. The proposed permit also requires Koreshan to plant leather fern or other wetland species on three-foot centers along the river banks along both banks for a distance of 30 feet. The proposed permit states that the project shall comply with all applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents did not raise standing as an affirmative defense. It appears that Petitioners or, in the case of corporate Petitioners, members and officers all live in the area of the Estero River and use the river regularly. For instance, Petitioner Dorothy McNeill resides one mile south of the proposed bridge on a canal leading to the Estero River, which she uses frequently. She is the president and treasurer of Petitioner Estero Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the Estero River in its natural state. Petitioner Ellen W. Peterson resides on Corkscrew Road, 300-400 feet from the proposed footbridge. For 26 years, she has paddled the river several times weekly, usually upstream because it is prettier. She formerly canoed, but now kayaks. The record is devoid of evidence of the water- quality criteria for the Estero River at the time of its designation as an OFW or 1995, which is the year prior to the subject application. Koreshan has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge would not adversely affect the water quality of the Estero River. Although the site of the proposed footbridge is devoid of bottom vegetation and there is no suggestion that this is anything but a natural condition for this part of the riverbottom, there is evidence that the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the water quality in two respects: turbidity caused by the pilings and leaching from the chromated copper arsenate applied to the pilings. The turbidity is probably the greater threat to water quality because it would be a permanent factor commencing with the completion of the installation of the pilings. The leaching of the heavy metals forming the toxic preservative impregnated into the pilings is probable due to two factors: damage to the PVC liner from collisions with inexperienced boaters and high-water conditions that exceed 1 foot over mean high water and, thus, the top of the liner. Both of these factors are exacerbated by flooding, which is addressed below. Koreshan also has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge is clearly in the public interest under the seven criteria. The proposed footbridge would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare and the property of others through exacerbated flooding. South Lee County experienced serious flooding in 1995. In response, Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District have attempted to improve the capacity of natural flowways, in part by clearing rivers of snags and other impediments to flow, including, in the case of the Imperial River, a bridge. One important experience learned from the 1995 floods was to eliminate, where possible, structures in the river, such as snags and pilings, that collect debris in floodwaters and thereby decrease the drainage capacity of the waterway when drainage capacity is most needed. Longer term, the South Florida Water Management District is considering means by which to redirect stormwater from the Imperial River drainage to the Estero River drainage. The addition of five pilings (more as the river rose) would exacerbate flooding. On this basis alone, Koreshan has failed to provide reasonable assurance. Additionally, though, the HEC II model output offered by Koreshan does not consider flooding based on out-of-banks flows, but only on the basis of roadway flows. In other words, any assurances as to flooding in the design storm are assurances only that U.S. Route 41 will not be flooded, not that the lower surrounding land will not be flooded. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, for the reasons already stated with respect to water quality. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The flow of water is addressed above. Navigation is best addressed together with the next criterion: whether the proposed activity would adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Despite the presence of only two public launch sites, boating is popular on the Estero River. Reflective of the population growth of Collier County to the south and the area of Lee County to the north, the number of boaters on the Estero River has grown steadily over the years. The canoe- rental business located on the 8.5-acre parcel rented canoes or kayaks to over 10,000 persons in 1996. Many other persons launched their canoes or kayaks for free from this site and the nearby state park. Lee County businesses derive $800,000,000 annually from tourism with ecotourism a growing component of this industry. The Estero River is an important feature of this industry, and the aquatic preserve at the mouth of the river and the state park just downstream from the proposed footbridge provide substantial protection to the scenic and environmental values that drive recreational interest in the river. It is unnecessary to consider the aesthetic effect of a footbridge spanning one of the more attractive segments of the Estero River. The proposed footbridge and its five pilings effectively divide the river into six segments of no more than 14 feet each. This fact alone diminishes the recreational value of the river for the many canoeists and kayakers who cannot reliably navigate the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are more than twice as far apart. As to the remaining criteria, the proposed footbridge would be permanent and the condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity is high. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the remnants of an historic dock, but it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The mitigation proposed by Koreshan does not address the deficiencies inherent in the proposed activity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner Council of Civic Associations, Inc., and denying the application of Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., for an environmental resource permit and authorization to obtain an easement for the use of sovereign land. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Malone Vice President and Treasurer Council of Civic Associations, Inc. Post Office Box 919 Estero, Florida 33919-0919 Reginald McNeill Dorothy McNeill, President Estero Conservancy, Inc. 26000 Park Place Estero, Florida 33928 Mark E. Ebelini Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Phyllis Stanley, President 12713-3 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Cathy S. Reiman Cummings & Lockwood Post Office Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Francine M. Ffolkes Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2005.
