The Issue The issue is whether Respondent materially breached a contract with Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District (District), as alleged in the District's Final Order dated November 10, 2005, and if so, whether Respondent should be placed on the temporarily suspended list for a period of one year.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is engaged in the business of exotic vegetation control. The firm's office is located in Loxahatchee, Florida, and its principals are Dr. Howard E. Westerdahl, president and majority owner (52 percent), and Christopher P. Bless, minority owner (48 percent). The business has been in existence for around ten years, operating first under the name of Enviroglades, Inc. and then Enviroglades, LLC. When this matter first began before the District in 2004, the firm's majority stockholder was Irene Goltzene, who now serves as its office manager, and the firm was classified as a District Non-Certified Minority Business Enterprise. In April 2005, the business was sold to its current majority shareholder, Dr. Westerdahl, and on May 15, 2005, Enviroglades, LLC, changed its name to Eco-Engineering, LLC. The District is a public corporation created under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its Vegetation Management Division is responsible for administering its exotic vegetation control program. On May 28, 2004, the District issued Request for Proposal OT040866 (RFP) soliciting "technical and cost proposals from qualified respondents to provide crews, equipment, and supplies for ground based control of exotic plant species via the application of herbicides and the hand removal of small seedlings using licensed applicators and laborers." The RFP called for responses to be submitted no later than June 25, 2004. Three companies, including Respondent, then known as Enviroglades, LLC, timely submitted proposals. On September 23, 2004, the District conducted a negotiation meeting with Respondent. During that meeting, Francois B. LaRoche and Donald Hill, both employees in the Vegetation Management Division, discussed items on a prepared Agenda concerning the RFP, including the type of contract, contract execution, cost proposal, invoicing, statement of work, and general questions. Also, Mr. Hill negotiated labor rates to be charged for Respondent's labor and supervisory positions. On October 14, 2004, the District awarded a contract (Contract) to Respondent and the other two companies who submitted proposals. The Contract with Respondent is a three- year "work order contract," that together with the other two contracts awarded was not to exceed the total project funding of $18 million. A work order contract and the work orders issued pursuant to the contract are based on time and materials, which obligates the District to pay the contractor for labor and chemicals when the invoices are submitted to the District up to the "not to exceed" amount in the work order. Under this process, Respondent would invoice the District for the actual cost of materials, such as herbicides, and for labor according to the negotiated rate schedule attached to the Contract as Exhibit L. Reimbursement under the work order, however, could not exceed $50,000.00. Paragraph 1 of the Contract's Special Provisions, found in Exhibit A of the Contract, provides as follows: . . . The DISTRICT does not guarantee or represent that any minimum number of Work Orders for any dollar amount will be issued as a result of this CONTRACT. Multiple contracts have been awarded for ground application services for exotic plant control, stated on the cover page as the Project Title, to be provided under this CONTRACT. The DISTRICT does not guarantee or represent that any minimum number of Work Orders for any dollar amount will be issued as a result of this CONTRACT. The amount stated on page one of this CONTRACT represents funding that may be used among the multiple CONTRACTS awarded by the DISTRICT'S Governing Board and in no way represents the amount to be paid under any single CONTRACT issued herein. This language meant that the District does not guarantee that any contractor will receive any minimum number of work orders or be issued more than one work order to complete a job. On November 2, 2004, the District conducted a second meeting, identified as a Contractor Review Meeting, which was attended by all contractors, including representatives of Respondent. At the meeting, the District discussed the following topics: statement of work, applicator safety and training, herbicide mixing, loading, and on-site storage of BMP's, new daily activity report, inspection, billing, anticipated Fiscal Year 2005 projects, questions and discussions, and facility and equipment inspection. On November 24, 2004, the District issued several work orders to Respondent for execution under the Contract. Under the District's customary practice, in order for the District to encumber the funds for the current budget year, the work orders were executed in advance of Respondent starting the work under each work order. One of the work orders issued by the District to Respondent was Work Order No. 01 for $50,000.00 to "treat exotics on SandHill Crane Property" (SandHill). This property encompasses approximately 1,400 acres, is located in Central Western Palm Beach County (west of the City of Riviera Beach), and is bordered by the Beeline Expressway on the south side, the District's C-18 Canal on the north side, an unnamed canal that dumps into C-18 on the west side, and a fence that separates the property from a development on the east side. Although Work Order No. 01 stated, without greater specificity, that the contractor was to "treat exotics on the SandHill Crane property," the District intended for the work order to cover all targeted vegetation on the entire site, and not just certain exotics or portions of the property. This was consistent with the type of work that had been performed on the same property for the two prior years (2003 and 2004) by other contractors. The District also intended that under Work Order No. 01, the $50,000.00 represented a ceiling, and Respondent could be reimbursed up to, but not in excess of, that amount. The Work Order called for the work to begin on November 22, 2004, and to be completed no later than March 31, 2005. It can be inferred from the evidence that the purpose of the March 31, 2005, completion date was to ensure that the work would be completed before the rainy season began a few months later. In determining the ceiling of a work order, and whether the value of the work order will afford sufficient labor and materials for the job, the District, through its Vegetation and Management Division staff, considers at least two factors. First, Mr. LaRoche, who is Senior Supervising Scientist in the Vegetation and Management Division, and/or his staff, makes a visit to the site to assess the extent of work to be performed. While on the site, the staff engages in discussions with the property's land manager to better ascertain the scope of the work. Also, Mr. LaRoche considers whether the property is being treated for the first time, or whether only follow-up treatment is required. In this case, Mr. LaRoche knew that the initial clearing of the exotics on the site had been done in 2003 (by another contractor) for $110,000.00 (consisting of two work orders - one for $50,000.00 and a second for $60,000.00), while a second contractor was paid $75,000.00 to maintain the site in 2004. (Prior to 2003, treatment of vegetation had been performed by mechanical removal, and not with herbicides.) Therefore, because the property had already been treated twice, and only follow-up work was required, he concluded that in 2005 it could be completed for a lesser amount, or $50,000.00. Finally, Mr. LaRoche described SandHill as "a very small property" (apparently in comparison to other sites) on which "a lot of work" had already been performed, "a very easy site," and one with "fairly clear boundaries." The Work Order itself did not contain a map or any information regarding the size of the property, the level of infestation of exotic species, the difficulty in performing the work, or ease of access to the property. Even so, Respondent's representative accepted the Work Order by affixing his signature to the document on November 24, 2004. In addition, Respondent's proposal in response to the RFP contained the following language: The office will receive a work order from SFWMD. The project manager will then schedule a meeting with the SFWMD project supervisor at the site where work is to be performed. When meeting with the SFWMD on site Enviroglades will obtain all necessary information, maps, target species, methodology, type and rate of chemical to be used to perform the work specified in the work order. Enviroglades project manager will then relay all information to the crew leader making sure all aspects of the work order are understood. The crew will then be scheduled to perform the work. The project manager and crew leader will be in contact daily while the work is performed. Daily reports will be turned into the office and reviewed by the project manager. The daily reports will then be processed for invoicing to SFWMD. Enviroglades uses Microsoft Projects to track work orders and all pertaining information. By including this language in its proposal, Respondent understood and agreed that if it needed maps or any additional information to understand the nature or scope of the work to be performed under the work order, that it was required to ask the District for that information. It also understood that before the actual work began, its project supervisor would visit the SandHill site with a District representative to better understand the scope of the work. While Section 1.5 of the Contract provided that "[t]he District shall provide additional guidance and instructions to Contractors' employees or hired workers where necessary or appropriate as determined by the District," this did not mean that the District would micromanage the job or provide continual guidance and assistance to a contractor while the work was being performed. In its proposal, Respondent also indicated that it had experienced no problems performing work for the District under other contracts. (Respondent had performed work for the District under at least one other contract in prior years.) More specifically, it stated in its proposal that "while working on a similar contract several years ago Enviroglades was able to handle all project tracking responsibilities set forth by the SFWMD." Before Respondent began any work, on January 18, 2005, the District project manager, David K. Johnson, a District Environmental Scientist in the Vegetation Management Division, met with Respondent's representative, Shaun E. Bless, at the SandHill site. In preparation for the site visit, Mr. Bless acknowledges that he did not read the contract or the Work Order. (Shaun Bless' supervisor, Christopher P. Bless, his older brother, minority owner of the firm, and listed as project manager, also admitted that he only "briefly looked through [the contract].") Mr. Johnson testified that during the site visit, he drove Mr. Bless around the perimeter of the property, described what exotics needed to be treated, and explained the methodology for treating those exotics. He also provided a small map of the property to Mr. Bless, which was admittedly not "very detailed." While on the site, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bless met with SandHill's land manager, Bill Helfferich, who was familiar with the property and could answer any questions regarding its size or the type and extent of vegetation present on the property. At hearing, Mr. Bless denied that Mr. Johnson was able to provide a map, a list of exotics to be treated, or the actual size of the site. However, because his deposition testimony directly conflicts with his testimony at hearing in several material respects, Mr. Bless' assertions have not been accepted as being credible. For example, at his deposition, Mr. Bless acknowledged that he knew he was supposed to treat Australian Pine, Melaleuca, Lygodium, Acacia, and Brazilian Pepper. He also stated that he understood what the boundaries of the site were and that Respondent had to treat all exotics, identified above, within the boundaries. There is no evidence that, before the work began, any representative from Respondent ever asked for clarification of any provision in the Contract, a more specific description of the area to be treated, or whether $50,000.00 was sufficient to complete the work. An assertion by Mr. Bless that he asked Mr. Johnson on January 18, 2005, whether there were additional funds (over and above the $50,000.00) to do the work is not deemed to be credible. Mr. Johnson denied that he was asked this question, and no other employee of Respondent expressed this concern to the District. Under Section 4.5 of Exhibit C of the Contract, the District spelled out detailed procedures for the treatment of exotic vegetation. Specifically, Subsection 4.5.3 provided that "[e]xotic vegetation to be treated includes, but is not limited to, melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, Java plum, earleaf acacia, Old World climbing fern, and torpedograss." At the same time, Subsection 4.4.2 of Exhibit C of the Contract spelled out the following level of performance expected to be achieved by the contractor: Minimum acceptable performance is defined as 90% control of targeted vegetation within the timeframe of the manufacturers recommended period for control to occur. This meant that ninety percent of the targeted exotic vegetation (in this case everything identified by the District to be treated) "needs to be showing sign of death or dying once they are treated." Therefore, since specific vegetation on the entire SandHill site was targeted for treatment, at a minimum, it was expected that ninety percent of the targeted vegetation on the entire site "would be dead." Finally, Subsection 4.4.3 of Exhibit C of the Contract specified how Respondent had to remedy the situation if it performed poorly by not meeting the minimum performance standards. Specifically, that provision stated that: If minimum acceptable performance is not achieved for any area of the project within a reasonable time frame following project completion (time frame dependent upon species targeted, mode of action of treatment, site and weather conditions), additional thorough treatment of the target plant(s) shall be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR at no cost to the District. Areas not treated or not responding to treatment may be required to be retreated at the CONTRACTOR'S expense, if it is determined that the CONTRACTOR provided faulty treatment measures or products. Vegetation treatments will be determined in terms of 'surface acres,' i.e., 43,560 square feet equal one surface acre. In short, this meant that if Respondent did not achieve the minimum acceptable performance for treating any area of the site, it was required to retreat that area at its own expense. Each of these provisions has been used in the District's contracts for many years. Until this case arose, the District represented without contradiction that no contractor had ever claimed to be "confused" by any of these requirements, particularly since there is a negotiation meeting, a contractor review meeting, and a site visit before any work begins. Respondent began work on the SandHill site around January 19, 2005. The District's project manager, Mr. Johnson, visited the site approximately two times per week to check on the progress. If he found a problem, he would prepare a written report, known as an Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Report. Apparently, no significant problems were noted until the last week in February, when Mr. Johnson prepared two reports. See Finding of Fact 25, infra. However, before those reports were prepared, Mr. Johnson says there were several oral communications to one of the supervisors and the office manager, Irene Goltzene, concerning the proper equipment to be used and the number of employees that were performing the work. It is also worth noting that it takes two to three weeks after vegetation is treated to "figure out what's been killed, what's been treated." At a minimum, then, an evaluation of the quality of the work could not be made until several weeks after the work began. In late February 2005, Ms. Goltzene notified Mr. LaRoche (presumably by telephone) that Respondent had finished its work at the SandHill site, but that Respondent "would require more money to complete the property." By that time, the District had paid invoices totaling $49,300.00 to Respondent. After receiving this request, Mr. LaRoche requested a meeting with Respondent's representatives to discuss what he characterized as a lack of performance at the site and the District's expectation that the site would be retreated at Respondent's own expense. On February 28, 2005, the parties met to discuss the work being performed on the site. According to Mr. Johnson, the District discussed "the problems that we've had," "[s]howed them the pictures we took of both sites, the SDS site and the SandHill Crane site," and "show[ed] them the improper treatments done at both locations." (It can be inferred that Respondent was simultaneously performing work under another work order at "the SDS site.") Finally, the District advised Respondent that "they would have to retreat the SandHill Crane at their own expense." During the course of the meeting, Mr. Johnson documented two instances indicating that Respondent was doing a less than adequate job at the site. These deficiencies were noted in two Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Reports, which are summarized below: On February 23, 2005, Mr. Johnson inspected the site and found one of Respondent's supervisors (Paul Eversley) asleep in his truck while the truck was running. This activity constituted a safety hazard since a running vehicle could possibly cause a fire. (District Exhibit 12) On February 25, 2005, or two days later, Mr. Johnson again inspected the site and found an "unsystematic treatment of the property and the poor treatment that was done of the property, specifically to Brazilian pepper, Lygodium and . . . melaleuca." Mr. Johnson concluded in his Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Report that Respondent's treatment was "not a very systematic approach to treatments." (District Exhibit 13) In response to the concerns expressed at the meeting, on March 2, 2005, Ms. Goltzene sent an email to Mr. LaRoche advising that Mr. Eversley "was orally reprimanded and told he was never to sleep while at the job site, this included during lunch and break time. Also that he would not be able to perform work on any SFWMD job for a period of 2 months." (The email notes that a similar oral reprimand was given to Mr. Shaun Bless, who apparently was observed sleeping on another job.) The email did not respond in any manner to criticisms raised at the meeting concerning the "poor treatment" of the vegetation. On March 14, 2005, Daniel D. Thayer, Director of the Vegetation Management Division, received an email from SandHill's manager, Mr. Helfferich, who stated in part: I don't want Enviroglades setting foot on any SOR property again if I have anything to say about it. They did a shitty job and charged us $50k. Steve Smith told me Veg. Manage. was trying to get some answers from the contractor about why the work was so poor and spotty. . . . I would like to have the rest of the area really treated this time, but not by them. After reviewing the emails from Ms. Goltzene and Mr. Helfferich, on March 17, 2005, Mr. LaRoche sent a letter to Ms. Goltzene in which he stated that he did not agree that a verbal reprimand of Mr. Eversley (and Mr. Bless) was adequate; instead, he stated that a suspension from District work for six months was the appropriate remediation. In addition, Mr. LaRoche advised as follows: We have the impression that your company is not fully committed to working for the District. You request additional work orders but are reluctant to fully staff the existing projects to accomplish the work in a timely and efficacious manner. The immediate availability of properly working equipment for all projects must also be included in the commitment. Without this type of commitment we may not be able to continue the contractual arrangement with your company. The projects you have been involved in with the District have multiple partners within the agency and with other governmental agencies. The Vegetation Management Division and its contract partners must be responsive and responsible in its operational activities. A recent evaluation of the SandHill Crane project your company completed, which we are doing for the Land Stewardship Division, is not up to their or our standards. They have indicated to us that their preference is for your company not to be allowed to perform work on any of their properties. Please indicate to us how these issues will be resolved in thirty (30) days, according to Exhibit B, Article 6 - Termination/ Remediation (copy attached) and Exhibit A. Without resolution there will not be any further work orders. (Emphasis in original) No one from Respondent answered Mr. LaRoche's letter of March 17, 2005.1 Further, the SandHill site was not retreated. However, someone from Respondent's office requested a meeting with Mr. LaRoche's supervisor, Mr. Thayer. On April 1, 2005, the parties met and discussed "questions about SandHill Crane, and also what [the District was] going to do to help Enviroglades continue the work on the property." The parties also agreed to meet again on April 13, 2005, at the SandHill site. On April 12, 2005, or the day before the site meeting, Mr. Johnson took photographs which establish that there were misapplications of chemicals at the site as well as areas that were supposed to be treated and were not. These photographs have been received in evidence as District Composite Exhibit 19. On April 13, 2005, several District employees, including Mr. Thayer, met with Shaun and Christopher Bless on the site to "see what was done, what was treated, and determine - what they were going to do about SandHill Crane." On April 22, 2005, Mr. Thayer sent Ms. Goltzene a letter which summarized the results of the April 13 meeting. In his letter, Mr. Thayer stated in part as follows: The work was satisfactory in the areas where melaleuca was treated. However, the areas where Brazilian pepper was targeted (this was throughout the majority of the property) the work was poorly done. According to the contract (Exhibit "C", Section 4.4.2) between the District and Enviroglades, "minimum acceptable performance is defined as a 90% control of the target vegetation within the timeframe of the manufacturers recommended period for control to occur." This critical standard was not met by Enviroglades with the Brazilian pepper work. Therefore in accordance with the contract, Exhibit "C", Section 4.4.3 which states "If minimum acceptable performance is not achieved . . . additional thorough treatment of the target plant(s) shall be the responsibility of the contractor at no cost to the District . . .", the District is requesting that Enviroglades re-treat the Brazilian pepper throughout the entire property. The District will provide the herbicide and Enviroglades shall provide the labor at no further cost to the District. Please respond, in writing, no later than May 1, 2005. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. By this time, Dr. Westerdahl had just purchased controlling interest in the business. (Whether he was fully aware of the problems which the former owners had created under Work Order No. 01 is unknown.) At hearing, Dr. Westerdahl produced an undated letter (District Exhibit 23), which he states was a response to Mr. Thayer's letter of April 22, 2005. Mr. Thayer denied ever receiving a copy, and the District has no record of such a letter being filed or date-stamped. In the letter, Dr. Westerdahl pointed out that a change in ownership had occurred, that he was now the "point person . . . for relations with the District," and that while he disagreed with the "assessment of the work product," Respondent agreed "to do the labor [to retreat the property if] SFWMD [would] supply the chemical." On April 29, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl sent a short email to Mr. Thayer in which he stated in part that the "[o]riginal is being sent in the mail. I would like to set up a meeting with you so you understand that this is important to us and we would like to have the opportunity to re-express our commitment to this[.]" He also asked that Mr. Thayer call him at his cell phone number, which was shown on the email. Dr. Westerdahl says he did not receive a return call from Mr. Thayer. By May 9, 2005, the SandHill property had still not been retreated. About the same time, Mr. LaRoche spoke with J. J. Flathmann, Deputy Director of Procurement, concerning the problems the District had encountered under the Contract. They reached a concensus that Respondent had breached the contract in a material respect. A "material breach" is defined as "any substantial unexcused nonperformance. The breach is either failing to perform an act that is an important part of the transaction or performing an act inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the contract." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-7.215(5). They concluded that by failing to meet the minimum performance standard in the Contract, Respondent had performed an act inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the contract. Ms. Flathmann then spoke with Frank Hayden, then Director of Procurement, who had the responsibility of issuing Cure Notices. A "cure notice" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.215(3) as follows: a letter citing the specific nature of the material breach, the corrective action required by the District and a thirty (30) day time frame for curing the breach, starting from receipt of the Cure Notice. The letter shall also state that if the contracting entity fails to cure the breach within the thirty (30) day period, the contracting entity will be found in default and may be placed on the District's Temporary or Permanent Suspension List. Mr. Hayden agreed with the assessment of Ms. Flathmann and Mr. LaRoche and directed Ms. Flathmann to prepare a Cure Notice and authorized her to sign it. On May 10, 2005, a Cure Notice was sent to Respondent indicating that the District considered Respondent's failure to comply with the District's vegetation control requirements a material breach of the terms and conditions of Contract No. OTO40866. The Cure Notice went on to say: Pursuant to Exhibit "C" of the contract, paragraph 4.4 you are required to achieve 90% control of targeted vegetation. On February 25, 2005, [sic] Enviroglades, LLC was issued a work order to treat exotic vegetation at the SandHill Crane Property. The completed work did not meet the acceptable performance as defined as 90% control of targeted vegetation. Accordingly, unless this material breach is corrected within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Cure Notice, the District shall terminate Contract No. OTO40866 for default pursuant to Article 6 titled Termination/Remedies of the contract, and shall initiate Governing Board action for determination of temporary or permanent suspension, if any. Please direct all questions concerning this matter to the undersigned . . . . Thus, the Cure Notice provided that all deficiencies must be cured no later than June 10, 2005. After Dr. Westerdahl received the Cure Notice on May 11, 2005, he immediately telephoned Mr. Thayer and reiterated that he desired to work with the District to resolve any outstanding issues. He also retained new counsel (John J. Fumero, Esquire) to assist in resolving the problem. (Enviroglades' counsel to the former owners had been terminated after sending a letter on May 4, 2005, to the District's Executive Director accusing the District of "favoritism, pettiness and discrimination" and other "unfair, illegal, [and] discriminatory" acts in administering the Contract, accusations which apparently did not sit well with the District.] On May 26, 2005, Respondent's new counsel sent a letter to Mr. Hayden advising that he now represented Respondent and confirming that a meeting with District staff was scheduled for May 31, 2005. Dr. Westerdahl stated that he had never received a Cure Notice before, and on advice of his new counsel, did not begin working on the SandHill site after receiving the Cure Notice. He was also told by counsel that the cure period of thirty days could be "stayed." On May 31, 2005, a meeting by District staff and Respondent's representatives took place. At the meeting, which Dr. Westerdahl described as being "a very accusatory meeting" accompanied by considerable "disagreement," the parties apparently agreed to allow Respondent to re-enter the site and complete any remaining work. This was confirmed in a letter from Mr. Fumero to District counsel on June 7, 2005. See District Exhibit 35. (It appears that much of the meeting addressed the accusations raised in the letter which Respondent's former counsel had sent to the Executive Director on May 4, 2005.) A written response to the May 10, 2005 Cure Notice was not sent by Respondent until June 2, 2005, or eight days before the deficiency was expected to be cured. In his letter to Mr. Hayden, Dr. Westerdahl stated in part that Respondent intended to complete the exotic plant treatment on the Sandhill Crane Property in the manner required and expected of the SFWMD staff. Our goal is to start the treatment program NLT [no later than] Monday, June 5, 2005. Arrangements have been made to meet with Mr. David Johnson, SFWMD, on Friday, June 3, 2005, to conduct a thorough site visit, obtain map(s), estimate treatment acreage, and identify herbicides required and quantities required." The letter also indicated that a treatment plan would be submitted to the staff by June 6, 2005. Dr. Westerdahl acknowledged that he prepared a treatment plan because he knew (as of June 2) that he would not be able to begin retreatment of the site until June 9 or 10 at the earliest (or when the time for curing the deficiency expired), even though his letter stated that work would begin no later than June 5. Finally, the letter outlined "some of the key changes that have been made specific to this contract as well as company policy." On June 3, 2005, the south and north areas of the SandHill site were reinspected by Mr. Johnson, who was accompanied by Dr. Westerdahl and Mr. Christopher Bless. (Due to the rainy season, which had now begun, other areas on the site were temporarily inaccessible.) In his Exotic Plant Inspection Treatment Report (District Exhibit 31), Mr. Johnson noted that the treatment of the Brazilian pepper was not "thorough," that the Lygodium in the south area "had not been treated at all," that there were "mis-applications" of chemicals to the north and west of a pasture area, and that hardwood species like Acacia "were not treated in the initial sweep." At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Johnson provided a treatment list for Dr. Westerdahl indicating the plant species to be treated, the treatment method, and the chemical to be used. See District Exhibit 32. Based on the information received at the June 3 meeting with Mr. Johnson, on June 6, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl advised Mr. Hayden by letter that there were two areas on the property which needed retreatment. The letter indicated that the first area would be treated on eight days between June 9 and June 20, 2005, while the second area would be treated on ten days between June 13 and 24, 2005. Finally, the letter listed the herbicides and chemicals that would be required for the retreatment. (The District had previously agreed to provide the chemicals if Respondent would provide the labor to complete the job. See Finding of Fact 33, supra.) On June 8, 2005, or more than two months after the Contract called for the work to be completed, Respondent's counsel advised Mr. Hayden by letter that Respondent's personnel misunderstood the terms and conditions of the Contract. Specifically, counsel stated that Respondent understood Subsection 4.4.2 of the Contract to call for "90% of the treated species rather than 90% of all the exotics on the property," and this was responsible for Respondent's "perceived nonperformance" under the Contract. (In other words, Respondent interpreted the provision to mean that whatever areas it was able to treat within the dollar amount of the work order, a ninety percent kill rate was expected; it did not interpret the provision to mean that at least ninety percent of all targeted exotic vegetation on the site must be killed.) The letter also noted that while the Cure Notice required Respondent to cure all deficiencies by June 10, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl's plan to correct the deficiencies "will require additional time to properly complete," and that "[s]ite work will resume on the site upon the District's authorization." By letter dated June 13, 2005, District counsel advised Mr. Fumero that "[d]ue to the unusually wet weather we have experienced, the District is willing to extend the cure notice by ten (10) working days starting on Tuesday, June 14, 2005." The letter also noted that "under no circumstances will the District allow the cure period to extend beyond June 30, 2005." (Emphasis supplied) The purpose of this language was to make it explicitly clear that no further extensions of the cure period would be granted. The letter further stated that Mr. Fumero's letter of June 8, 2005, was the first time the District learned that Respondent did not understand the terms of the Contract. Finally, the letter advised that Respondent should contact Mr. Hayden to make arrangements to visit the site. On June 16, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl, Christopher Bless, and a District Environmental Scientist, Gordon Baker, met on the SandHill site "to review policies and procedures for the retreatment of property in accordance with the Cure Notice." Dr. Westerdahl had a work crew present that day and intended for it to be supervised by Shaun Bless. However, because Mr. Bless had been suspended from all District work for six months (for sleeping while on duty), see Finding of Fact 28, supra, the work could not begin and was delayed until another supervisor could be found. Mr. Baker prepared a memorandum summarizing the meeting and pointed out that Mr. Johnson would meet with Respondent's representatives again the following day (June 17, 2005) at which time it would be emphasized that the entire property had to be "swept." See District Exhibit 38. Based on his inspection of the site and the amount of vegetation that needed to be retreated, on June 17, 2005, Mr. Baker signed a new work order which authorized Respondent to purchase herbicides in the amount of $15,000.00 (rather than $5,000.00) for the retreatment of the site. On June 17, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl prepared a memorandum to Mr. Baker concerning their meeting on the site the previous morning. He confirmed that he had been given a map which marked all areas to be retreated, that Mr. Shaun Bless and Mr. Eversley could not work on the property, and that work would commence the day after the meeting, or on June 17. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Johnson prepared an Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Report for the two targeted species: Brazilian pepper and Lygodium. He noted that personnel were now working on the site treating the Brazilian pepper. On June 23, 2005, another Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Report was prepared by Mr. Baker, who reported on the progress of the work to treat the Brazilian pepper. He noted that "at this rate they may not be able to complete the property. Called Howard [Westerdahl] to request additional crews. He said he planned to have additional crew tomorrow." Dr. Westerdahl submitted progress reports to Mr. Baker on June 24, 28, 29, and 30, 2005. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. In his June 28 report, he noted that afternoon rains were delaying the completion of the work. He also stated that out of ten targeted areas, Areas I, II, and V were completed or would be completed no later than June 27; that Areas III, VI, and VII should be completed by July 1; that areas VIII, IX, and X may not be finished until "early next week"; and that Areas III and IV may require "a little follow up spraying" the following two days. Accordingly, he requested "a few extra days to complete this work." In his final progress report submitted on June 30, 2005, Dr. Westerdahl stated that his crews worked all that day and "all B. peppers, melaleuca, and acacia in Area III will be treated by the end of Friday, July 1." He further stated that he anticipated "being finished with all open areas" by July 7; treatment of Brazilian peppers and acacia in Areas VI and VI would be completed by July 5; the "[r]emaining Lygodium in Areas III, VI, and VII will be treated starting again on Tuesday, July 5"; and "[t]he wooded areas (VIII, IX, and X) should be finished by Monday, July 11 or before, if weather permits." Finally, he stated that July 12 would "be used to survey and re- spray colonies that do not appear to be dying." Notwithstanding the District's earlier admonition that no further extensions of the cure period would be granted, on June 30, 2005, Respondent's counsel submitted a letter to District counsel requesting "an extension of time for the SandHill Crane project up to and including July 14, 2005." The letter noted that Respondent had lost "a couple of days due to rain," that access to the certain areas of the property was limited to marsh buggies due to the amount of rainfall, and that two new workers would not begin work until July 11, 2005. As of June 30, 2005, the work was not completed, and Respondent had failed to cure the breach within the time period specified by the Cure Notice. This was treated by the District as a default on the Contract under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.217. Under that rule, the District is required to issue a Termination for Default Notice by Certified U.S. Mail "[i]n the event that the contracting entity fails to cure the material breach within the time specified in the Cure Notice." In making this determination, Section 6-4 of the Contract requires in part that the District shall specify the reasons for taking this action, "which shall not be arbitrary or capricious." After discussions by Ms. Flathmann and Mr. Hayden, on July 1, 2005, the District, through Mr. Hayden, issued a Stop Work Order, which was provided to Respondent's counsel. (One of Respondent's work crews was also ordered off the site the same day.) The Stop Work Order constituted a termination of the Contract and provided in relevant part as follows: The South Florida Water Management District (District) hereby provides notice that your client has failed to cure the conditions of the material breach under Contract No. OTO40866 as specified in the District's certified letter of May 10, 2005 and the extension letter dated June 13, 2005. Pursuant to clause 6.1 of the contract, the District is therefore issuing this Termination for Default Notice (Notice), effective immediately upon your receipt of this certified Notice for failure to perform ground application services for exotic plant control at SandHill Crane Property. All contract performance shall cease as of the effective date of this Notice and the District shall initiate Governing Board actions for determination of temporary or permanent suspension, if any. * * * The District is in receipt of your letter dated June 30, 2005, in which you have requested additional time for your client to finish spraying at the SandHill Crane project. As the attached letter states, your client materially breached its contract with the District and was given a thirty (30) day cure notice. Your client failed to cure the breach within the required time. The District provided your client an additional 13 days to cure the breach due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the impossibility to perform due to the weather. Even after your client was afforded more time to complete the job, Enviroglades failed to show up at the site for over a week while the weather was good. As the attached letter states under no circumstances would your client be provided an extension of time after June 30, 2005. This letter shall serve as notice to have your client cease work on the SandHill Crane Project effective at the close of business on June 30, 2005. On July 29, 2005, Mr. Johnson made a post-treatment inspection of the SandHill site. In his final Exotic Plant Treatment Inspection Report, he noted as follows: The entire property was divided into 10 units which were to be treated sequently (sic) before proceeding to the next. Our inspection revealed that units 1, 2 and 3 were swept while unit 5 had some partial treatments. On units 1, 2 and 3 the Brazilian pepper treatments revealed [at] 80% control, while the Lygodium treatment were around 5% control. Unit 5 had only the western and southwestern area treated. The total area of the three units and one partial unit totaled approximately 30% of the property. When a default on a contract occurs, the District is required to determine "whether the contracting entity should be suspended, and if so, whether it should be temporarily suspended and for what period of time, or permanently suspended from doing business with the District." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-7.218(1). Section (2) of the rule identifies seventeen factors to take into account in making this determination. Three such factors are "[t]he economic impact of the material breach to the District," whether "the breach caused or will cause delay in the completion of a District project," and "if the breach caused a delay in performance, whether it was a substantial delay." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-7.218(2)(a), (b), and (c). Pursuant to the rule, Mr. Hayden "gathered material that would assist [him] in making the recommendation to the governing board," which included discussions with members of the Vegetation Management Division, the contract administrator, his deputy, and counsel, and a review of documents pertaining to the matter. The evidence shows that because of the breach, the District incurred additional costs due to an "inordinate amount of staff time supervising Enviroglades during the time they performed at SandHill Crane." This included additional site visits, inspections, and monitoring by the staff, numerous meetings with Respondent's representatives, the preparation of written communications, and the provision of further instructions and guidance not normally given to the contracting entity. Mr. Hayden also took into consideration the fact that the District incurred additional expenses in purchasing herbicides while Respondent attempted to complete the job. In all, the District says it incurred an economic impact of $6,264.15. (Mr. Hayden's testimony is unclear as to whether that amount is for the herbicides alone, or whether it also includes the value of the additional staff time expended on this job. It is assumed, however, that this amount represents the cost of the herbicides only, as this would be consistent with the District's Final Order.) Finally, Respondent's inability to complete the work "put the job performance into the rainy season," which caused a substantial delay in getting the project finished. It can reasonably be inferred from the evidence that because of the delay, the site could not be completed by another contractor until a new fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2006), at which time it would have to treat not only the normal vegetation growth which occurs from year to year, but also any targeted vegetation not treated by Respondent in 2005.2 On November 9, 2005, Mr. Hayden recommended that given these considerations, Respondent should be placed on the temporarily suspended list for a period of one year. The Governing Board accepted this recommendation and a Final Order was entered on November 10, 2005. This appeal followed. At hearing, among other things, Respondent contended that the $50,000.00 was insufficient to treat the entire site, and because the Contract was a time and materials contract, Respondent could do as much as it could for that amount, and consistent with District practice on other contracts, then request additional work orders to complete the project. If a contractor expresses concern about going over the ceiling amount in a work order in order to complete a job, the District customarily meets with the contractor to assess the property. This can occur before the job begins, during the job, or near the completion of the work. In determining whether funding is adequate for treatment at a particular site, and additional work orders should be issued for a job, the District takes into consideration such matters as the job performance of the contractor at the time the request is made, the manner in which the money to date has been expended by the contractor, any new conditions unknown to the District at the time the work order was written (such as access problems), and any other circumstances that may affect the price of the work. There are also certain types of sites and work that have constantly changing conditions that often require more than one work order. Examples are the District's Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) and the spraying of exotic vegetation in canals. The evidence suggests that Respondent had a work order under the Contract for one such area known as "STA One East." The SandHill site did not fall into either category. Respondent correctly points out that the District issued two work orders for the same site in 2003, and it has issued additional work orders to other contractors to complete a job, including the STA One East job, which Respondent was then performing under the same Contract. In the case of the work performed on the SandHill property in 2003, the contractor was doing the first herbicidal treatment of the site, it was meeting the minimum performance standards under its contract, and the District agreed that the contractor needed and deserved additional money to complete the job. Unlike that situation, Respondent failed to meet the minimum performance standard under the Contract, the District (and SandHill's land manager) did not believe that $50,000.00 worth of work had been performed, and therefore no additional work orders were justified. To issue work orders under these circumstances would be in direct conflict with Subsections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of the Contract. As to the issuance of a second work order for the STA One East job, STAs and canals are uniquely different from other projects (such as SandHill) and often times require additional work orders to complete the job. Respondent also contends that the District rule governing cure notices does not contain any prohibition against extending the cure period, and there is no evidence to justify not extending the period for another ten working days when the job was not completed on June 30, 2005. Neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.215(3), which defines a "cure notice," or 40E-7.216, which describes the procedure for issuing one, address the issue of whether or not an extension of time to satisfy a cure notice can be granted. Here, the evidence does not show that the District was arbitrary or capricious or otherwise abused its discretion by failing to approve a second extension of time for Respondent to complete the work. Respondent further suggests that after the meeting on May 31, 2005 (which was two months after the work should have been completed), it was prohibited by the District from entering the SandHill site to finish the work for several weeks. The evidence shows that the District's primary concern was to get the job completed as soon as possible, given the fact that the rainy season began in June. Although there may have been some confusion on Respondent's part, particularly since its counsel instructed it not to enter the property until permission was given, there is no credible evidence that any District staffer told Respondent that it was prohibited from entering the site, or that retreatment must be delayed until a treatment plan had been formally approved by the District. Indeed, the evidence shows that Respondent had keys to the property at all times, and notification to the Vegetation Management Division is all that would have been required to access the site. Respondent further contends that it was confused over the language in Section 4.4.2 of the Contract calling for "90% control of targeted vegetation," that the cited provision is ambiguous, and that it did not learn the actual scope of the work until specific instructions were given after the Cure Notice was issued. Given the fact that Respondent's representatives attended a negotiation meeting and a contractor's review meeting, Mr. Bless visited the site prior to the beginning of the work, and no other contractor has ever been confused by this language, this argument has been rejected. All other contentions raised by Respondent have either been addressed in other Findings of Fact, or they are deemed to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Eco-Engineering, LLC, breached its Contract C-OT040866 in a material respect, and that it be placed on the temporarily suspended list from doing business with the District for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2006, 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 July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer's findings of fact in both the First Recommended Order and the Recommended Order As To Matters On Remand are accepted except as otherwise noted in either this Final Order After Remand or the First Final Order. The Florida Audubon has filed 80 pages of exceptions comprising 98 exceptions to findings of fact and 33 exceptions to conclusions of law. I have grouped these exceptions and ruled on them under the categories listed below. Scope of Remand and Hearing Officer's Preliminary Statement. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(A)-1(G), 2(A)-2(M), 3(A)-3(C), 4(A)- 4(B), 5(A)-5(C) and 9(A)(3) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's preliminary statement of the background of the case and the scope of the issues on remand. My review of the record in this case leads me to conclude that the Hearing Officer's factual summary and statement of the issues on remand in her preliminary statement is an accurate and concise description of the background of this case and is based on matters of record and competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, I reject these exceptions. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer's preliminary statement comprises neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law. Therefore, a ruling on these exceptions is not actually required. 5/ Nature of the Proposed Development. Florida Audubon's Exceptions 8(A)-8(I) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's description in F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 of the nature of the proposed development. These exceptions do not assert that F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 are not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Rather, the gist of these exceptions is that the Hearing Officer overlooked or did not give proper weight to evidence that may suggest a contrary finding. It is well settled that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. I am not at liberty to reject or modify it. See e.g., Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Nor may I reweigh the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. Heifetz, supra. My review of the record shows that the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 are supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The following summarizes F.O.F. Nos. 1-9 and the competent substantial evidence in the record which supports them. The proposed development on the island has been approved by the City of Naples and involves the refurbishment and expansion of existing Keewaydin Club facilities along with the construction of 42 single family homes within the city's jurisdictional boundaries. (F.O.F. No. 1: App. Remand Ex. 2). The Applicant is limited in its improvement of the Keewaydin Club facilities as follows: Construction must occur within the existing club property boundaries. A maintenance facility, firehouse, helipad and additional tennis courts are to be constructed. In addition, two buildings containing guest units and a building with 21 staff units can be built. Existing buildings can be remodeled to continue in their present functions and the clubhouse can be expanded by an additional 4,400 square feet. (F.O.F. No. 2: Stipulation of Respondents; DER Remand Ex. 2.). Marina expansion has been proposed by the Applicant, along with elevated walkways through jurisdictional wetlands, but are not essential to the proposed development. For purposes of consideration of secondary impacts the hearing on remand assumed that the marina expansion and walkways would be constructed so that the secondary impacts of the potential development could be considered during the current dredge and fill permit review. (F.O.F. No. 3: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 18-19). The 42 single family homes are planned for specific locations south of the club property. These homes will be on 15,000 square foot lots. It is anticipated that they will be landscaped with native vegetation and that residents will move around the island via golf carts on cart paths. (F.O.F. No. 4: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-1, 1-5, 1-16, 1-38, 2-7 to 2-9, and 5-2; App. Remand Ex. 11 at 6; Tr. at 413-15). Because the city has limited the planned development to the 42 residential units and the improvements to the club, both the Department of Natural Resources and South Florida Water Management District have approved permits specifically tailored to this development plan. (F.O.F. No. 5: App. Remand Exh. 2; App. Remand Ex. B at 6-10, App. Remand Ex. 11). The privately owned portion of the island cannot be developed further because of the city's approval conditions for this project. These two conditions are: (1) City Ordinance 89-5843 mandates all of the property in the land options involved with future development must be annexed into the city; and Once the property is annexed, the Applicant will give the city a conservation easement over 2,270 acres. This acreage is to be retained in its natural state and is expected to be maintained as suitable habitat for fish, plants and wildlife. (F.O.F. No. 6: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-3, 1-30; App. Remand Ex. 6; App. Remand Ex. 11; App. Remand Ex. A at 11-12). The City of Naples requires the developer to eliminate all septic tanks serving the Keewaydin Club as one if its conditions for approval of the current project. This has the potential to positively impact and improve current water quality on the island. (F.O.F. No. 7: Tr. at 317, 323-24; App. Remand Ex. D at 12; App. Remand Ex. F at 13 and 15; App. Remand Ex. 2). Specific measures have been proposed to minimize development impacts on the wildlife known to inhabit the island. Preservation of the osprey nest zone, upland gopher tortoise habitat, control of wheeled traffic on the beach, use of indirect lighting to avoid disorientation of baby atlantic loggerhead turtles as they hatch from nests, and trapping programs to control the raccoon population are prepared and ready for implementation. (F.O.F. No. 8: App. Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A. at 22; DER Remand Ex. 2). The vast number of natural plant species on the island will be protected in designated areas. The preservation has been planned so representatives of species of interest will continue to thrive. (F.O.F. No. 9: App. Remand Ex. F at 16; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; DER Remand Ex. 2; App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-25, 2-7, 2-16, and 2-17). Since the above findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I can not disturb these findings of fact. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. The MSSW Permit and Reasonable Assurance As To Water Quality. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(C)-1(F), 8(G)(3), 9(A), 9(I)(1)-(3) and 30(D) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law that the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause violations of water quality standards. (F.O.F. Nos. 10-20; Conclusion of Law No. 42). 6/ The gist of these exceptions is that the Department erred in relying on the assumption that in issuing its Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") permit, the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD") properly determined that the surface water management system for the island development provided reasonable assurance that the system would not result in violations of state water quality standards. There is competent substantial evidence in the record supporting the Hearing Officer's finding that the Department did not independently evaluate whether the development's surface water management system provided reasonable assurance that it would not violate state water quality standards. (F.O.F. No. 10; Dentzau, Tr. at 700-701, 712-13). It is therefore necessary to decide whether the Department properly relied on the MSSW permit for reasonable assurances that the surface water management system would not result in water quality violations, or whether the de novo hearing rendered the reliance moot in any event. Before the Department may issue a dredge and fill permit, it must determine that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project, when considered with cumulative and secondary impacts, will not cause violations of water quality standards. Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes. See also Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and authorities cited therein. 7/ Where development is a secondary impact of a dredge and fill project, and the development will have a related surface water management system, the Department must also determine whether reasonable assurances have been provided that the surface water management system will not cause water quality violations. The first issue presented by this case is whether the Department may properly rely on a water management district's MSSW permit as the needed reasonable assurances, or whether the Department must "look behind" the water management district's MSSW permit and make a separate and independent evaluation of whether the necessary reasonable assurances have been provided. I note that in 1989 the Legislature enacted Ch. 89-279, Section 15, Laws of Florida, which created Section 373.418, Florida Statutes, providing in part that: It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part [i.e., Part IV of Chapter 373] incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403. * * * (3) The department or governing boards may adopt such rules as are necessary to implement the provisions of this part. Such rules shall be consistent with state water policy and shall not allow harm to water resources or be contrary to the policy set forth in s. 373.016. The rules of SFWMD require that surface water management systems not cause violations of state water quality standards. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. Also, State water policy requires that MSSW permits not cause violations of state water quality standards. Rule 17-40.420(3)(a), (b)1.a., Fla. Admin. Code. Although the Department is authorized to issue MSSW permits under section 373.418, it is the intent of Chapter 373 that Department powers be delegated to the water management districts to the greatest extent practicable. Section 373.016(3), Florida Statutes. The Legislature has ,thus established a scheme where strong preference is given to the regulation of surface water management systems by Water management districts through Chapter 373 MSSW permits. 8/ This scheme includes a mechanism in which the Department, the applicant, or a substantially affected person can petition the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission for a determination of the validity of the permit. See Section 373.114, Florida Statutes. If the Department in the context of a Chapter 403 dredge and fill permit evaluation were to second guess and make an independent assessment of whether a surface water management system which had already received a water management district MSSW permit actually provided the necessary reasonable assurances, it could lead to a collateral attack on the validity of the MSSW permit and defeat the Legislative intent expressed in Sections 373.418 and 373.114, Florida Statutes. I therefore conclude that where an MSSW permit issuance by a water management district has become final, the Department may accept the MSSW permit as reasonable assurance that, as to the operation of the system within the scope of the dredge and fill permit, the surface water management system will not cause violations of state water quality standards. Of course, the Department will continue to make an independent determination of whether the remaining aspects of the project, taking into consideration cumulative and secondary impacts, provide the necessary reasonable assurances. I note that in this case the MSSW permit has not yet become final, as it is pending review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. 9/ A second issue raised is whether the de novo hearing rendered moot any question as to the propriety of the Department's reliance on the MSSW permit. I note that in the remand hearing in this case expert testimony was introduced to the effect that the development's management and storage of surface water system would not cause violations of state water quality standards. (App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 14-17.). Since this proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of the issues on remand, if there was any error by the Department in relying on the MSSW permit, it is moot because the Hearing Officer found that the necessary reasonable assurances were provided based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Since the Hearing Officer's finding that reasonable assurances have been provided is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I may not disturb it. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Reasonable Assurances As to Water Quality. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(C)-(F), 8(D)(2)-8(D)(3) , 8(E)(1), 8(F), 8(G)(1)-8(G)(3), 8(H) and 9(A)-9(K) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project, including the secondary impacts of the expected development, will not cause violations of water quality standards. (F.O.F. Nos. 10-20). Once again, Florida Audubon's exceptions do not assert the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, but essentially contend that the Hearing Officer did not give proper weight to what Florida Audubon contends is conflicting evidence. As I noted above, the standard which I must apply in ruling on exceptions to findings of fact is whether the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Florida Dept. of Corrections; Heifetz; supra. If I find any competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of fact I must accept the finding of fact even if there are contrary facts in the record and even if I would have weighed the facts differently. Heifetz, supra. 10/ As noted in Part III(3) above, the Department did not independently evaluate whether the design of the project's surface water management system provided reasonable assurance that the system would not violate state water quality standards. Rather, the Department relied on the issuance of the MSSW permit by the South Florida Water Management District. (F.O.F. No. 10; Dentzau, Tr. at 700-701, 712-713). Florida Audubon suggests that SFWMD did not in fact review the impact of the surface water management system on water quality, and that the Department's reliance on the MSSW permit precludes a finding that the Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards. I disagree for the reasons stated in Part III(3) above. In particular, I note that the record on remand contains competent substantial evidence that the surface water management system will not result in violations of water quality standards. (App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 14-17). This proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of whether reasonable assurances have been provided that the project, taking into consideration the expected development of the island, will not result in violations of water quality standards. Therefore, regardless of whether the Department initially erred in relying on the MSSW permit, any error has been rendered moot by this de novo proceeding on remand in which the Applicant introduced competent substantial evidence that reasonable assurances have been provided that the stormwater management system will not cause violations of water quality standards. As to F.O.F. Nos. 11-20, the following summarizes the findings of fact and the competent substantial evidence in the record supporting them. In its review of the proposed development the Department identified several areas of potential adverse water quality impacts. Specifically, the Department investigated impacts from a potential marina expansion; the creation of all planned cart paths, proposed house pad construction, boardwalk and canoe launches, exempt docks, and beach renourishment. (F.O.F. No. 11: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 7-9, 11-25; DER Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Llewellyn at 5-13). The marina expansion, boardwalks, and canoe launches will impact existing jurisdictional mangroves, thereby affecting water quality. If later permitted, however, the Applicant can reasonably minimize such impacts and offset them in a suitable fashion. (F.O.F. No. 12: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 20-21; DER Remand Ex. 2). 11/ The primary impacts from exempt docks are minimized by the development plan. The secondary potential impacts are negligible. (F.O.F. No. 13: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 20-21; DER Remand Ex. 2). The cart paths will not be paved. Urban runoff from these surfaces will have an insignificant quantity of pollutants that are accounted for in the surface water management system design. (F.O.F. No. 14: App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 14; Applicant's Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-12, 16; Applicant's Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11). The secondary impacts from the house pad construction and the urban runoff from associated impervious surfaces are minimal. Nevertheless, they are accounted for in the surface water management system design. (F.O.F. No. 15: Applicant's Remand Ex. 2 at 1-16, 5-2; App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-10; App. Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11-12; App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 13-14). The agreements entered into between the Applicant, the City of Naples, and the Department of Natural Resources prohibit any additional shore hardening. The beach management plan includes periodic beach renourishment. (F.O.F. No. 16: DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 16; App. Remand Ex. 11; App. Remand Ex. E at 10, Prefiled Test. of Stephen at 10; Tr. at 368-369). A review of the surface water management plan presented at the remand hearing reveals that the potential for adverse secondary impacts is significantly limited due to the low density and minimal infrastructure for the proposed development. The 42 new homes will be spread over 430 acres. A series of swales, collection ponds and surface water treatment areas have been designed to minimize the impacts of development on the surface water. The use of fertilizer or pesticides by residents will be strictly limited. (F.O.F. No. 17: App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-10; App. Remand Ex. D, Prefiled Test. of Missimer at 11-12; App. Remand Ex. F, Prefiled Test. of McWilliams at 12-19; App. Remand Ex. 6). The surface water management system meets the Department's water quality standards. (F.O.F. No. 18: App. Remand Ex. B, Prefiled Test. of Means at 6-14; App. Remand Ex. 6; Tr. at 185-89, 197-215). Potable water is already conveyed to the island from the city. Once the septic tanks are removed, the overall affect of the planned development on ground water will be negligible. (F.O.F. No. 19: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A, Prefiled Test. of Dentzau at 16, 23-24). I conclude that the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 10-20 are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and therefore I will not disturb them. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Reasonable Assurances As to Public Interest Test. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 10(A)-10(O)(2) in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact that reasonable assurances have been provided that the proposed project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts, is not contrary to the public interest. (F.O.F. Nos. 21-34). As with the previous exceptions, Florida Audubon is essentially arguing that the Hearing Officer improperly weighed the evidence. My task is to determine whether the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. If they are, I may not reject them. The following summarizes F.O.F. Nos. 22-33 and the competent substantial evidence in the record supporting them. All new construction is required to meet flood protection standards even though the owners will not be eligible for flood insurance. Home construction standards take into consideration many of the effects of hurricanes. (F.O.F. No. 22: App. Remand Ex. 2: App. Remand Ex. F at 15). The hurricane evacuation plan has been approved by the city and Collier County emergency management authorities. (F.O.F. No. 23: App. Remand Ex. 2 at Ib, 1-29; App. Remand Ex. A at 17-21). Public funds are protected as the proposed development is not dependent upon federal, state or local funding or insurance. The city has passed an ordinance that requires property owners to acknowledge that the city has no liability for rebuilding any damaged infrastructure or improvements. The monetary risk associated with the development will be borne by the developer and the residents. (F.O.F. No. 24: App. Remand Ex. 2 at 1-3 to 1-8). The 42 single family homes will be located within the island's Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) unit boundaries. The evidence adduced at hearing indicated that the CBRA designation will not be jeopardized by the proposed development. (F.O.F. No. 25: Tr. at 106-7; App. Remand Ex. A at 21-33; App. Remand Ex. 3; App. Remand Ex. 4; App. Remand Ex. E at 16). The proposed development will have negligible secondary impacts on fish and wildlife. The project protects or enhances various fish and wildlife habitats. All wetlands will be preserved. The beach dune system will be improved through removal of exotics and dune restoration. As a result, the interdependence of the estuarine area on the coastal barrier resource will not be adversely affected by the project. (F.O.F. No. 26: DER Remand Ex. A at 15- 16; App. Remand Ex. E at 19; App. Remand Ex. F at 10, 13-14, 15-16; Tr. at 414, 825-26, 829-30). Gopher tortoises will be relocated to an upland preserve on the same island. The removal of exotic plants, the introduction of native herbaceous plants and control of the raccoon population should positively effect the gopher tortoise population. (F.O.F. No. 27: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 21- 22; App. Remand Ex. F at 15-16; Tr. at 855-60). Indirect lighting and the reduction of raccoons should benefit the atlantic loggerhead turtle population. (F.O.F. No. 28: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. 2). Threatened or endangered plant species on the site include golden leather fern, assorted orchids and bromeliads, golden polypody fern, shoestring fern and prickly pear cactus. Representatives of these species will be protected in preserve areas, according to conditions in the development plan approved by the city and conditions established in other permits. (F.O.F. No. 29: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. F at 16). The proposed project preserves all identified habitats which contribute to marine productivity. Low density development and other limitations already placed on the project were designed to minimize the adverse impacts on fishing and marine productivity. Recreational values will be enhanced by the project because of the proposed canoe launches and habitat restoration. (F.O.F. No. 30: App. Remand Ex. F at 16). The development is permanent in nature. Design limitations on the project, existing permit conditions and the low density aspect of the development combine to assure that the project has limited adverse impacts. (F.O.F. No. 31: App. Remand Ex. 2; App. Remand Ex. F at 17-18; Tr. at 872-73). There will be no adverse impacts on historical or archaeological resources. The Caloosa Indian Midden located on the property is to be preserved undisturbed. The Keewaydin Club Lodge is a designated structure on the National Historical Register and will be maintained as a historical building. (F.O.F. No. 32: DER Remand Ex. 2; DER Remand Ex. A at 22; App. Remand Ex. A at 16-17). Except for the creation of 42 single home residencies for people willing to spend a million dollars for a home on an island with access only by boat or helicopter and all monetary risk for infrastructure and improvements damaged by any cause, the current condition of the island will not be changed significantly. All high quality resources and their functions have been preserved by project design. (F.O.F. No. 33: App. Remand Ex. F at 17-18; Tr. at 872-73). The above findings of fact which are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence support the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. No. 21 that the project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Since the above noted findings of fact are supported in the record by competent substantial evidence, I shall not disturb them and the above noted exceptions are therefore rejected. However, as to the Hearing Officer's "finding" that the project is not contrary to the public interest, this is ultimately a conclusion of law for which I have the final authority and responsibility to determine. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Depart. of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990); Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), rev. den. 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1991). Although the factors found in the Hearing Officer's F.O.F. Nos. 26-30 help alleviate the adverse impacts of the project, when I balance the public interest criteria I conclude that the project would be contrary to the public interest without the mitigation offered by the preservation conservation easement to be placed over 2,270 acres. When I take the mitigation into consideration, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts, is not contrary to the public interest. Barrier Island -- Executive Order 81-105 and Designation Under The Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resources Act (CBRA). Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 1(G), 3(A)-3(C), 5(A), 8(D)(1), 8(E)(1), 9(A)(3), 9(B)-9(D), 10(E)(1) (3), 10(J) 10(N)(3), 17 (A)-17(D), 21, 22, 24 and 25 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) designation of Keewaydin Island will not be jeopardized by the proposed development (F.O.F. No. 25) and to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that the development is not prevented by Governor Graham's Executive Order No. 81-105. (C.O.L. No. 43). My review of the record shows that competent substantial evidence was admitted supporting the fact that Keewaydin Island's Coastal Barrier Resource System ("CBRS") unit designation does not prohibit the development of Keewaydin Island. It just precludes federal funds to facilitate such development. Therefore, that development would not jeopardize the CBRS unit designation. (App. Remand Ex. 3; App. Remand Ex. 4; App. Remand Ex. A at 21-23; App. Remand Ex. E at 16; Tr. at 106-107) Accordingly, I shall not disturb this finding of fact. Although I note that Executive Order No. 81-105 may have some weight in the balancing of the public interest criteria under Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, I concur with the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Executive Order No. 81-105 does not per se preclude the development of coastal barrier islands where government funds will not be used to create the infrastructure that promotes development on the barrier island. In view of the above, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Exceptions Lacking Particularity. Florida Audubon Exceptions No. 6 and 7 lack sufficient particularity. Rule 17-103.200(1), Fla. Admin. Code, provides in part: Exceptions shall state with particularity the basis for asserting that the Hearing Officer erred in making or omitting specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a recommendation ... The reason for the above requirement is clear. It is impossible for the parties to respond, or for me to rule, when the basis for a purported error is not clearly stated. Exceptions No. 6 and 7 fail to state how the Hearing Officer has erred in a finding of fact, conclusion of law, or recommendation. Such exceptions do not comply with Rule 17-103.200(1), Fla. Admin. Code, and therefore must be rejected. For this reason, I reject these exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Hearing Officer's conclusions of law in both the First Recommended Order and the Recommended Order As To Matters On Remand are accepted except as otherwise noted in either this Final Order After Remand or the First Final Order as modified by the court's opinion in Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen, Builder, supra. Scope of Remand. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 11-14 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law No. 36-39. The gist of these exceptions is that the Hearing Officer misconstrued the scope of the remand and consequently lacked jurisdiction. There is no merit in the contention that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was conferred by the court's mandate that the matter be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. See Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nor do I agree that the Hearing Officer misconstrued the scope of remand. The opinion of First District Court of Appeal stated: In the instant case, we disagree with appellee that the contemplated development of 75 estate homes is speculative and is not closely linked or causally related to the proposed dredging and filling. We perceive there to be little difference between the Department's aforestated need to "consider what will be at the end of the bridge or road," and the necessity here to consider what will be at the end of the pipeline, especially when the evidence, proffered or admitted, suggests that the development enabled by the dredge and fill permit could have devastating environmental impacts. Such evidence would be highly relevant to the Department's consideration of whether the applicant has carried its burden of giving reasonable assurances under section 403.918 that water quality standards will not be violated and the project is not contrary to the public interest. Thus, the Department's consideration of the proposed development solely in relation to the design of the pipeline system itself neglected the necessity in this case to consider potential secondary impacts. Consequently, it was error for the Hearing Officer to exclude the evidence proffered by appellants for the reasons set forth in her recommended order. Accordingly, this cause must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings and re-evaluation of the proffered evidence in a manner consistent with this opinion. 12/ Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d at 779 (quoting McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, (12 FALR 980, 981 (DER Final Order, Jan. 22, 1990); footnote omitted). I conclude that the Hearing Officer properly construed the scope of remand to require the consideration of "the secondary impacts associated with the development of Key Island, which the Court determined were closely linked and causally related to the proposed permit." (R.O.R., C.O.L. No. 37) I also note that this administrative proceeding on remand is a de novo determination of the issue of the secondary impacts, and that Florida Audubon has fully participated and submitted testimony and evidence on the issue of the secondary impacts. I therefore conclude that the administrative hearing fully complied with the scope of remand, and accordingly reject the above noted exceptions. Reasonable Assurances As To Water Quality. Exceptions No. 14, 15(A)-15(C), 16, 18, 24 and 30(D) in whole or part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that reasonable assurances have been provided that the project and its cumulative and secondary impacts will not cause violations of water quality standards. (C.O.L. Nos. 40, 41, 42). Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration cumulative and secondary impacts, provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. Reasonable Assurances As To The Public Interest Test. Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 15(A)-15(C), 16, 17, 18, and 21-24 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project together with its cumulative and secondary impacts are not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. No. 43) As I noted above, the determination of whether reasonable assurances have been provided as to the public interest test is ultimately a conclusion of law for which I have the final authority and responsibility to determine. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Depart. of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990). Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, I conclude that the project, taking into consideration the cumulative and secondary impacts and the offered mitigation of the preservation conservation easement over 2,270 acres, has provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore the above noted exceptions are rejected. Barrier Island -- Executive Order 81-105 and Designation Under The Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resources Act (CBRA). Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 17(A)-(D), 21, 22, 24 and 25 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that Executive Order No. 81-105 and the Federal Coastal Barrier Island Resource Act do not preclude the proposed development on Keewaydin Island. Based on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact which I have accepted, and for the reasons stated in Part III(6) above, I concur with the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law and reject the above noted exceptions. Evidentiary Issues Official Recognition of Hurricane Andrew and Amendment to Rule 28-21.003 Florida Audubon's Exceptions No. 25, 30(A)-30(C) do not take exception to any specific finding of fact or conclusion of law. Rule 17-103.200(1) requires rulings only to exceptions to findings of fact, conclusions of law or recommendations. Although lacking in specificity, these exceptions apparently assert that the Hearing Officer erred in an implied conclusion of law when she declined to take official recognition of (1) an amendment to Department of Natural Resources Rule 18-21.003 relating to leases or consent to uses of sovereign submerged lands incident to the development of undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and (2) the effects of Hurricane Andrew on Keewaydin Island. The Hearing Officer, relying on the authority of Collier Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 462 So.2d 83, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), denied these motions on the ground that the evidentiary hearing had ended. I note that the decision to give official recognition, like judicial notice, lies in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. See ., Huff v. State, 495 So.2d 145, 151 (Fla. 1986)("It is upon the wisdom and discretion of the judges of our courts that the doctrine of judicial notice must rest."). Even assuming that the Hearing Officer's decision to deny official recognition is an implied conclusion of law to which an exception is appropriately made, I cannot say that I believe the Hearing Officer abused her discretion in declining to take the requested official recognition. Florida Audubon has suggested no competent substantial evidence in the record which would be a basis for determining whether the amended Rule 18-21.003 would be applicable to the proposed development on Keewaydin Island. Furthermore, even if the rule was applicable to Keewaydin Island, the effect of the rule would be relevant to the necessary permit, easement or consent to use from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The Department's permit does not remove the applicant's need for a Board of Trustees permit over sovereign submerged lands. 13/ As to the request for official recognition of Hurricane Andrew, it cannot be said that it is generally known and not subject to dispute how Hurricane Andrew would have effected Keewaydin Island if the proposed project has been in place. Therefore official recognition of Hurricane Andrew is neither appropriate nor material for the purposes sought by Florida Audubon. Accordingly, I conclude that the Hearing Officer did not abuse her discretion in denying official recognition. I therefore reject the above noted exceptions. Official Recognition of Facts In the MSSW Permit Proceeding Before SFWMD. Florida Audubon's Exception No. 27, although lacking in specificity, appears to be taking exception to the Hearing Officer's implicit denial of taking official recognition of facts in the administrative proceedings of another case, i.e., the MSSW permit proceedings before the SFWMD. Apparently Florida Audubon is contending that the Hearing Officer erred in not taking official recognition of Florida Audubon's assertion that the SFWMD did not consider impacts on water quality when it issued the MSSW permit. As I noted in my discussion in Parts III(3) and III(4) above, the Department may properly rely on the issuance of an MSSW permit as reasonable assurance that the surface water management system will not cause violations of water quality standards. Regardless of whether the SFWMD properly considered water quality impacts when it issued the MSSW permit, in this case the issue is moot because a de novo proceeding was held where the record contains competent substantial evidence that the surface water management system provides reasonable assurance that the system will not cause violations of water quality standards. This exception is therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions. Exception 13 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 38 describing the nature of the proffers made in the previous hearing. Since the hearing on remand was a de novo hearing on the issue of secondary impacts of the island development in which Florida Audubon presented all of its evidence related to the issue, I find no error that is relevant or material to this proceeding. Exception 13 is therefore rejected. Exception 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 39 holding that the Department acted in good faith in its pre-hearing review of the information regarding the development. Once again, since the hearing was a de novo proceeding to establish the secondary impacts of the development I find no relevant or material error. Exception 14 is therefore rejected. Exceptions No. 19(A)-19(C) take exception to the Hearing Officer's C.O.L. No. 45, which concluded that the Department witnesses who disagreed with the proposed project did not apply the tests set forth in the statutes as did the Department witnesses who actually made the initial determination of whether the permit should issue. This exception also looses sight of the fact that this remand proceeding is a de novo determination of the facts. Florida Audubon presented witnesses who opposed the permit, and the Applicant presented witnesses and evidence in favor of the permit. The Department presented witnesses as to the Department's initial determination of the matter. I find no error and reject the exception. Exceptions 20(A) to 20(C) taking exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendations. These exceptions essentially are attacks on the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to reasonable assurances. The exceptions are denied for the same reasons stated in Parts III(3), (4) and (5) and IV(2) and (3). Exceptions 28 and 29 take exception to the Hearing Officer's acceptance of proposed findings of fact in the proposed recommended orders of the Applicant and the Department. These exceptions are redundant and are rejected for the same reasons stated in Parts III and IV(1)-(5) above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving Respondent Builders' dredge and fill permit in DER File No. 111486645 filed August 31, 1988, subject to the following modifications: Specific condition number 6 should be amended to read: 6. Dredging shall be done by mechanical means (no hydraulic dredging) as there does not appear to be an appropriate area for discharge retention available. No dredging shall be allowed during the weeks of July 1st through September 30th of any year. If rock is encountered during the dredging activity along the proposed pipeline corridor, the rock is to be punctured by mechanical means. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the proposed findings of fact filed by Petitioners are addressed as follows: Accept that John Remington holds the option on the property. See HO #1. Reject the rest of paragraph 1 as contrary to fact. See HO #6. Accept the description of the project locale. See HO #7. The rest is rejected as irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside scope of hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. Rejected. Improper summary. Irrelevant. Accepted. See Ho #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Matters. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Immaterial. Accepted. Rejejcted. Improper summary. Accepted. Rejected. Immaterial. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Beyond the reasonable assurances standards. Accepted as a reasonable possibility. See HO #11. Accept the first sentence. See HO #11. The rest is rejected as argumentative. Accept as a fact summary. The assumption portion is rejected as argumentative. Rejected. Premature analysis of future sewer treatment plant permit. Accept first sentence. The rest is rejected as argumentative and beyond scope of hearing. Accepted. Accepted to the point that such information could be known, based upon the methods used to form the opinion. Rejected. Argumentative. Respondent Builders' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #7 and #9. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #21. Rejected, except that there is no evidence of scour activity. There was insufficient evidence for the conclusion that the pass is very stable. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. Rejected. Premature in this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #16 and #17. Accepted that reasonable assurances provided. See HO #11 and #16. Accepted. See HO #33. Accepted. See HO #13 through #16. Accepted. See HO #16 and #17. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Accepted. See HO #31. Accepted. See HO #18. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #21 and #29. Accepted. See HO #23-#25. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #21, #22 and #29. Accepted. See HO #30. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent DER's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #4 and HO #7. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. Conclusionary. See HO #21 and #29. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Outside of scope of hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Z. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building 25 Southeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire MESSER VICKERS CAPARELLO FRENCH AND MADSEN Suite 301 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Richard Grosso, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a lease on a 160-acre tract of land along the northern boundary of Palm Beach County which has been zoned and used for several years to mine rock used in local road building operations. This tract of land is surrounded on the east, south and west by some 1,000 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Vanguard Farms. The Vanguard Farms property is used to grow citrus and sugarcane. The geology of the area in the vicinity of this application is such that some three feet of Everglades top soil overlies the limestone. The land surface is about fifteen (15) feet NGVD and the water level table fluctuates from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet NGVD for the dry and wet seasons. The Vanguard Farms property, which surrounds Petitioner's property in Palm Beach County, is a wet area bordered on the west by Lake Okeechobee and on the east by high ground water elevation. The area has an excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration and excess water will always be generated. In order to render Vanguard Farms arable it is necessary to drain the property and pump excess water from the land. The existing rock pit is some 6.7 acres in area. In order to economically mine rock from this pit it is necessary to remove stable overburden and expose the limerock to provide a stable platform on which the mining equipment can be operated. Since the water table is generally above the top of this limerock, it is necessary to remove water from the pit to expose the rock to be quarried. During earlier operations water from the pit dewatering was pumped into a canal which flowed onto intervenor's property. In the application now under consideration, no water from the dewatering operation will be pumped off the 160 acres controlled by Petitioner. A 25-acre holding pond has been constructed on this site as well as a 9-acre overflow pond. The holding pond was constructed by piling the overburden, and possibly some limerock, in a rectangular shape some ten feet above the surface (25 feet NGVD). This material with which this 10-foot high levee is formed was excavated with a dragline and shaped with a tractor. Condition 28, of the conditions proposed by Respondent for the grant of this application, requires all dikes, levees and berms behind which water is to be retained to be inspected for structural adequacy. A report of such inspection and steps necessary to correct the deficiencies noted shall be submitted, and the report is to be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. Perimeter ditches on the north, south and east sides of Petitioner's lands will intercept seepage from the retention pond and surface waters flowing onto this property. These perimeter ditches are connected to the rock pit to which such waters will flow. Water moving westward across the property will be intercepted by the rock pit. Without the rock pit excess water generated in this area will flow onto Vanguard's adjacent land. This condition will exist when the pit is not in operation. However, when the pit is in operation, the water will be retained on Petitioner's property by those limiting conditions requiring the maintenance of water level elevation in the perimeter ditch to be kept either equal to or below the water level elevation of Vanguard Farms. Under this condition, all water will be routed between the pit and retention pond. Conditions of the permit which Respondent proposes to issue include that the water level in the retention pond not exceed 18.5 feet NGVD, that the holding pond be interconnected with the overflow pond, that the water level in the perimeter ditches be maintained by use of a flashboard riser at 10.8 feet NGVD, that dewatering operations cease upon notification by District staff of any adjacent property owners experiencing water-related problems, and that a direct connection between holding pond and rock pit be established for emergency discharge of water from the holding pond back into the rock pit.
The Issue Should Petitioner fine Respondent for using contaminated spoil from the previous septic system to cover a new drainfield being installed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issues permits for the construction, installation, modification, or repair of onsite sewage treatment systems in accordance with Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes. Those repairs are conducted by septic tank contractors as qualified and registered by Petitioner, with the expectation that the registrants shall be subject to ethical standards of practice in their business as established by Petitioner's rules. See Section 489.553(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent, whose address is Post Office Box 390073, Deltona, Florida 32738-0073, is registered by Petitioner as a septic tank contractor. Respondent does business as Alpha Environmental Services. Respondent contracted with a customer at 1019 Pioneer Drive, Deltona, Florida to replace an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system at that address. Petitioner issued a permit for the work related to the septic system. Leila Baruch, then of the Volusia County Florida Environmental Health Agency, certified by Petitioner in inspecting septic systems, inspected the site before the work was performed. On February 18, 1999, Ms. Baruch returned to the site for the purpose of examining the "easy way" drainfield which Respondent had installed over the natural soil at the bottom of the replacement system. The easy way drainfield is a system of pipes surrounded by pieces of styrofoam. At the time of this inspection, the cover that was to be placed over the top of the drainfield had not been arranged. Ms. Baruch observed the old contaminated material that had been excavated from the failed system (the spoil) located to the side of the new drainfield. The new drainfield had been left uncovered to allow the inspector to observe its placement depth. As was the custom, the Volusia County Environmental Health Agency approved the installation of the drainfield concerning its relative depth and a call was made from Ms. Baruch to Respondent's business indicating that it would be acceptable to cover the drainfield following the more recent inspection. By this contact, it was not intended to grant permission to cover the drainfield with the spoil that had been removed from the failed system. This call to Respondent's business was made on February 18, 1999. Later on February 18, 1999, Ms. Baruch spoke with Respondent. This contact was based upon remarks that had been made to Ms. Baruch by the customer homeowner during Ms. Baruch's inspection of the site earlier on that date. The customer's remarks were to the effect that she understood that Respondent intended to use the spoil removed from the original septic system to cover the new system. In her conversation with Respondent, Ms. Baruch reminded Respondent that Respondent could not use the spoil to cover the new drainfield. In addition, Ms. Baruch read from Rule 64E-6.015(6), Florida Administrative Code, concerning the prohibition against the use of spoil material in covering the new drainfield. Ms. Baruch returned to the job site two or three days later and observed that the spoil material from the failed septic system had been used to cover the new drainfield. Respondent was responsible for the placement of the spoil material as a cover for the new drainfield. This condition in which the spoil material had been placed over the new drainfield was also observed by Scott Chambers of the Volusia County Environmental Health Agency, who is registered as a sanitarian with the Florida Environmental Health Association and certified by Petitioner for inspection of onsite sewage and disposal systems. As a consequence of the findings made by the inspectors, Petitioner cited Respondent for violation of Rule 64E-6.015(6), Florida Administrative Code, and seeks to impose a fine in accordance with Rule 64E-6.022(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's contention in his testimony that the spoil material was not placed immediately on the new drainfield is rejected. A substantial portion, if not all, of the new drainfield was covered by the spoil removed from the failed drainfield.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds Respondent in violation of Rule 64E-6.015(6), Florida Administrative Code, and imposes a $500.00 fine in accordance with Rule 64E-6.022(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32738-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of November, 1999. 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an organization composed of persons who own property bordering on Crooked Lake in Polk County, Florida. Among the members of the Petitioner is a property owner who owns land directly adjacent to the land that the Applicant proposes to fill. Crooked Lake is a navigable body of water. The applicant, John Mangham represents the owner of certain property which is adjacent to Crooked Lake. The property includes a berm, or ridge which runs approximately parallel to the present borders of Crooked Lake. The Applicant proposes to fill areas adjacent to the berm landward from the present waterline. The waters of Crooked Lake at one time flowed around the berm, and the area which the Applicant proposes to fill has from time to time been submerged, and formed a part of Crooked Lake. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency charged by law with the responsibility of issuing dredge and fill permits in the navigable waters of the state, and permits for construction of stationary installations in the waters of the state. During August, 1976 the Applicant commenced a landfill project on the property which is the subject of this proceeding. More than twelve truckloads of fill material were brought into the area, and were placed on the berm, and landward of the berm. Members of the Petitioner made efforts to stop the fill project, and they contacted officials of the Department. The Department concluded that certain of the Applicant's activities violated Department rules, and the Applicant agreed to remove debris which had been placed near the lake, to re-seed a partially cleared area between the berm and the lake, and to refrain from any further activity between the berm and the lake. The Department did not require that the Applicant remove any of the fill that had been placed landward from the berm, but it did request that the Applicant apply for an "after-the-fact permit" respecting the clearing of vegetation. The Applicant thereafter applied for a permit to place additional fill material landward from the berm. The Department has approved the application and has issued a permit. The Petitioner has filed a petition demanding that the permit be set aside, and that the Applicant be required to remove the fill which has already been placed in the area. The evidence presented at the final hearing is insufficient to establish whether the land that the Applicant has filled, and the land which the Applicant proposes to fill, is above or below the ordinary high waterline of Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake is presently at its lowest elevation within the memory of any of the persons who testified at the hearing. One of the witnesses has lived on land adjacent to Crooked Lake for more than forty years. The berm which lies on the Applicant's property has apparently been at all times out of the lake. The waters of the lake at one time surrounded the berm. Within the past three years the area landward from the berm has been covered with water, and it has been possible to reach the area by boat from Crooked Lake. Biological evidence offered at the hearing confirms that areas surrounding the berm were submerged at one time. Various estimates were presented respecting the elevation of the ordinary high waterline of Crooked Lake. None of the estimates were supported by substantial competent evidence. One witness, a qualified land surveyor, called by the Petitioner, attempted to establish the elevations of points which the Applicant proposes to fill. The witness' survey was not done in an appropriate manner, and is not creditable. So long as the waters of Crooked Lake remain at their present level, the Applicant's proposed project would have no environmental effect upon the waters of the lake. None of the fill material would be placed directly in the waters of Crooked Lake, and all of the work would occur more than 100 feet landward of the present waterline. It does appear that if the lake rose to previous levels, the land which the Applicant proposes to fill would be within the waters of the lake. If the area were filled, it would be above the level of Crooked Lake, even if the lake rose to prior levels. The Department requested that the Florida Department of Natural Resources issue a statement respecting ownership of the subject property. The Department of Natural Resources responded that the ordinary high waterline elevation contour has not been established for Crooked Lake. Neither the Department of Natural Resources nor the Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund have given their consent to the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant is a duly authorized and registered Florida corporation engaged in the business of producing electrical power for sale. It proposes to construct and operate a 486 megawatt (gross) coal fired electrical generating facility immediately adjacent to its existing three coal fired units known a Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3. The proposed site is located on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay near the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay (designated as a Class III waterbody), and is five miles north of Ruskin, ten miles south of Tampa and fourteen miles from St. Petersburg across Tampa Bay. As noted, the proposed unit will be the fourth unit at the applicant's existing Big Bend site and will share many of the service facilities with the existing units. The shared facilities include the coal dock, loading facilities, the coal storage area, the switchyard, and the existing wastewater treatment pond and spray irrigation field. The existing transmission line towers will be used by Unit No. 4, but approximately 3,000 feet of conductors will be installed to connect the new unit to the existing switchyard located just east of the existing station. Other associated facilities include storage and handling facilities for limestone necessary to operate the flue gas desulfurization system, storage and disposal areas for the by-product produced by that system and storage and disposal for ash. A spur from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to the site was constructed for previous projects and will be used in connection with construction of proposed Unit No. 4. An additional spur will be constructed entirely within the site boundaries and no offsite rail construction will be necessary. As a primary energy source, proposed Unit No. 4 will burn high sulfur bituminous coal. The unit will be equipped with an electrostatic precipitator for the purpose of controlling the emission of particulates, and will also be equipped with a flue gas desulfurization system for the purpose of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide. These pollution control devices have been determined by the Department of Environmental Regulation to constitute the "best available control technology." In order to prevent significant deterioration of air quality from the operation of Unit No. 4, various alternative strategies have been studied by TECO and its consultants. These studies demonstrated that the most economical strategy which will comply with state and federal regulations calls for the use of a 99.74% efficient electrostatic precipitator for the removal of particulate emissions, boiler and burner design for oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide and a system for the removal of sulfur dioxide which includes a flue gas desulfurization system, coal washing and retention of certain of the sulfur dioxide in the ash during combustion. The entire sulfur dioxide control system will provide a removal efficiency of 90 percent. Tampa Electric Company and its consultants have modeled and analyzed the projected effects of air pollution from proposed Unit No. 4. The evidence developed from such studies shows that the operation of Unit No. 4 as proposed pursuant to the attached conditions of certification will comply with State and federal standards for ambient air quality and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. Big Bend Unit No. 4 will generate three basic byproduct materials. These are fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas desulfurization byproduct. The fly ash generated by Unit No. 4 will be collected in the electrostatic precipitator prior to the boiler gas being discharged to the atmosphere. This material will be marketed as a raw material for the production of cement. However, in the event no market is available, provisions have been made to store fly ash at the site of Unit No. 4. The unsold fly ash will be sluiced to a settling pond and then ultimately transported to the final storage area. Bottom ash is the material resulting from combustion of coal which is collected at the bottom of the boiler. Bottom ash will be sluiced to a bottom ash area which will consist of a pond for settling the material and a final disposal area. The flue gas desulfurization system byproduct, a commercial grade gypsum, will be stored as necessary on site. It is anticipated that this will be a marketable product. Fresh water necessary to operate the facility, other than for cooling purposes, will be obtained from Hillsborough County. This fresh water will be used to supply make-up water to the boiler and in the flue gas desulfurization system. In addition, fresh water will be used to sluice ash and to service the sanitary facilities for the plant, for fire protection and for other limited miscellaneous uses. All such water will be obtained off premises and no production wells will be owned or operated by Tampa Electric Company in connection with Unit No. 4. For some purposes, the applicant will use the lowest quality of water available from the County before drawing from the public potable water supply. Proposed Unit No. 4 will utilize a once through condenser cooling system and fine mesh screens on the intake structures will be installed for existing Unit No. 3 and the proposed Unit No. 4. Saltwater for the cooling system will be withdrawn from the existing intake canal and will be returned to the existing discharge canal. The plant cooling water flow will be pumped from the intake structure screen wells through the plant and discharged to the discharge canal where the flow from Unit No. 4 will combine with the existing flow from Units 1, 2 and 3. There is sufficient water available in Tampa Bay to supply the volume requirements of the Unit No. 4 once through cooling system. The fine mesh screens installed on the intake structures for existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 will minimize the impact of entrainment and impingement on organisms in the area. A system will be provided to return organisms impinged on the fine mesh screen structures to a location suitable to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The cooling water passing through the plant will increase in temperature to an expected level of 17 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature of the ambient intake cooling water prior to ultimate discharge. This 17 degree temperature rise is the design maximum for the unit at maximum load conditions. The heated water will be discharged to the existing station discharge canal and will then flow in a westerly direction into the Bay where it will mix with ambient water and continue to reduce in temperature. Tampa Electric Company performed a 316 Demonstration in accordance with Section 316 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, to assess the impacts of the thermal discharge from the plant on organisms in the Bay. In addition, the effects of the cooling water intake structure on impingement and entrainment of organisms in the intake water were assessed. These reports were submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency for evaluation. The Department of Environmental Regulation has approved the use of a once through cooling system with fine mesh screens on the intake structures on Unit No. 3 and Unit No. 4. DER recommends establishment of a thermal mixing zone in accordance with Section 17-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, encompassing an area not to exceed 4980 acres. The conditions of certification proposed by DER require further validation of the size of the mixing zone after Unit No. 4 begins operations. The Environmental Protection Agency has tentatively determined that the use of fine mesh screen technology on existing Unit No. 3 and proposed Unit No. 4 constitutes the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts for the purposes of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, and has also tentatively determined that the impact of the thermal discharge from proposed Unit No. 4 is within acceptable limits under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. The unit will utilize chlorine in the circulating water system to control the growth of marine organisms in the condenser and intake tunnel. The control of this growth, or biofouling, is necessary to ensure that the flow of the cooling water and transfer of heat is not excessively impeded. The chlorine which is inserted into the circulating system is ultimately discharged to the discharge canal and then to the Bay. To ensure compliance with Florida Class III water quality standards applicable to discharges of chlorine, the Department of Environmental Regulation recommends in its conditions of certification that an effluent limitation of 0.2 milligrams per liter be imposed and a mixing zone encompassing 6.1 acres be established. Process waste streams associated with Unit No. 4 will include the boiler blowdown, the bottom ash system blowdown and the flue gas desulfurization system blowdown. These three waste streams will be discharged to the circulating water system and ultimately to the discharge canal currently in existence. Waste streams which are not discharged to surface waters include the various plant drains and waste waters from various plant washing operations that will take place. These waste streams will be collected and transported to the existing waste water pond and, from there, the waste water will be recycled to the extent possible. Final disposal of this waste water will be through the existing stray irrigation system. The existing waste water pond and spray irrigation field are designed to accommodate the additional use. Runoff from the coal pile facility will be contained on the site and transported to the existing waste water pond. A drainage system is provided for the plant for the runoff from the materials storage areas, the byproduct storage areas, and the construction activity associated with the main structure at Big Bend Unit No. 4. Materials and by-product storage area runoff will be intercepted and contained on site. Runoff from the Big Bend Unit No. 4 main construction area will be contained and pumped to the waste water pond. Other areas subject to construction will employ mitigative measures defined by the conditions of certification attached hereto. A potential concern exists that groundwater flow from the waste water treatment facilities and byproduct storage areas may result in leaching of pollutants into the groundwaters of the State. The groundwater at the existing site has been designated as Class I-B waters. The conditions of certification include a groundwater monitoring program designed to assess the ambient water quality and identify the potential impacts of leachate contamination with respect to the State groundwater quality standards. The impact to the existing water quality as a result of the discharge of the boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown streams through the circulating water system to the discharge canal and ultimately to the Bay will be undetectable across the plant, from the point where the circulating water is taken into the plant, combined with the three streams and released at the point of discharge. There will be no measurable change in water quality as a result of these discharges. The flue gas desulfurization blowdown stream and the bottom ash blowdown stream will be subject to treatment to meet State and federal effluent limitations. The flue gas desulfurization system will be treated for pH adjustment, suspended solids removal and oil and grease removal prior to discharge. The bottom ash system will include an adequately sized pond to remove suspended solids so that the effluent limitations will be met. Boiler blowdown will not require treatment to meet applicable effluent limitations. In addition to the treatment methods proposed above, Tampa Electric Company evaluated other options relating to the treatment of these streams to meet water quality standards for these discharges. Alternatives investigated included a zero discharge option, further recycling of the waste streams and various treatment methods to remove heavy metals prior to discharge. The cost of these alternatives ranges from $1.2 million to $1.8 million. Even with the treatment systems in place, there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, after addition of the discharges from the three identified waste streams. Tampa Electric Company concluded that based upon these factors, and primarily upon the fact that even with additional treatment there will be no detectable change in water quality from the point of intake to the point of discharge, the expenditures are not justified in this circumstance. Tampa Electric Company requested variances from certain regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulation relating to ground and surface water quality standards. The request for variances from water quality standards for groundwater discharges contained in Rules 17-3.071 and 17- 3.101(1),(3),(4),(8),(9) and (13), Florida Administrative Code, can be resolved by defining a zone of discharge and implementation of the groundwater monitoring program as outlined in the attached conditions of certification. This variance request was therefore withdrawn by Tampa Electric Company at the hearing. The variance request from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17- 3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17- 3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium), Florida Administrative Code, for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown are recommended by the Department of Environmental Regulation to be granted for a period of two years after the start of commercial operation during which time TECO shall institute a study program, including monitoring, in accordance with the attached conditions of certification. The request for variances from surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.061(2)(h) and 17-3.121(7) (lead), 17-3.051 (minimum criteria) and 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), Florida Administrative Code, were withdrawn by TECO at the hearing. Tampa Electric Company also requesting variances from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission rules relating to noise level standards and surface water quality standards. No representative of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission appeared at the hearing. A variance from the noise level standards contained in the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commissions's Rule 1-10.04A is requested for the steam blowing operation that is necessary prior to commercial operation of proposed Unit No. 4. This procedure is recommended by the equipment manufacturer to minimize damage to the steam turbine resulting from debris which may accumulate during construction of the unit. The noise levels produced from this steam venting operation vary from unit to unit and it is impossible to accurately predict what the noise levels will be. Violation of the provisions of the Commission's Rule 1-10.04A for short durations during the operation is possible. Tampa Electric Company will institute a notification procedure designed to inform residents in the area that the operation will occur over a short period of time. No adverse impact to residents and the environment in the affected area is anticipated and only minor inconvenience to the residents is expected to occur. The entire operation occurs only intermittently prior to initial start up of the unit and should encompass a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the start of the steam blowing operation. The surface water quality rules from which TECO seeks a variance from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission relate to the standards for chromium, lead, iron and arsenic for the discharges of boiler blowdown, bottom ash blowdown and flue gas desulfurization system blowdown from Unit No. 4. This variance request is made for the life of the certification for Unit No. 4. The evidence demonstrates that the three waste streams identified above are discharged to the circulating water system and then to the discharge canal existing at the facility. The request for a variance from these pollutant parameters is based upon data compiled by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation which shows that ambient water quality existing in Hillsborough Bay contains concentrations of the identified parameters (chromium, iron, and arsenic) in amounts which are already above applicable Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards for Hillsborough Bay. The data concerning lead concentrations is inconclusive. The evidence demonstrates that with the exception of lead, the maximum values contained in the applicant's sampling data for chromium, iron, and arsenic are all above the applicable water quality standards. Access roads on the site which have been constructed for previous projects at the Big Bend Station are capable of assimilating additional traffic caused by the Unit No. 4 construction activities. There is very little opportunity for public access to the site during construction and operation. The vehicular traffic will be intercepted and controlled by a guard system at the entrance to the site on a 24-hour basis. In addition, all other fenced areas will be equipped with locked gates and patrolled by roving guards. Except for intermittent traffic congestion, plant construction is not expected to have an impact on the nearest residential communities of Apollo Beach and Adamsville. There are no historic, scenic, cultural, or natural areas or state parks and recreation areas which will be disturbed by the construction of Big Bend Unit No. 4. The construction of Unit No. 4 and its related facilities will involve the loss of approximately 272 acres of vegetation and habitat on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, some of which has been previously disturbed by construction activities associated with existing Units 1, 2 and 3. Sound levels predicted as a result of construction activities are below the maximum permissible sound levels in accordance with the Hillsborough County noise code limit of 60 dBA during the daytime in a residential area. The majority of construction will take place during daylight hours and no significant noise impact is expected at the surrounding residences from onsite construction activities. Most bird and animal species located near the site are expected to have adjusted to the existing sound levels resulting from Units 1, 2 and 3 operation. Although birds and animals nearest the plant may experience periodic "startle reaction" and move away from the noise source, no measurable effects of construction noise levels on organisms occurring near or beyond the immediate site location are anticipated. The area wide effect of construction and operation on wildlife and vegetation is not expected to be significant. Appropriate steps have been proposed to minimize the environmental impact of construction and operation of Unit No. 4. The Florida Public Service Commission has determined that there is a need in the State of Florida for the electric power to be produced by proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has generally concluded that there are no over-riding objections to the proposal for Unit No. 4 so long as adequate steps are taken to mitigate problems associated with air and water pollution. The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission has commented on the project and offered no objections to it. The Division of Archives, History and Records Management concluded that the proposed coal fired power plant is unlikely to affect any archeological or historical sites. The National Marine Fisheries Service has made several recommendations regarding once through cooling concerns including the use of fine mesh screens, but does not object to the overall project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns similar to those of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also does not object to the overall project. The Department of Veteran and Community Affairs has concluded that the application is generally compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Environmental Regulation has made no recommendation concerning the grant of denial of the variance requests from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rules. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Water Management District have all recommended certification of the proposed Big Bend Unit No. 4 subject to the stipulated conditions of certification which are attached to this Recommended Order. At the conclusion of the site certification hearing, members of the general public were given the opportunity to comment upon the application for site certification. No public testimony was offered.
Recommendation Based upon the entire record of this proceeding and the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: Tampa Electric Company be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of Big Bend Unit No. 4, the associated facilities and the directly associated transmission line, as proposed in the amended application and evidence in the record; The certification be subject to the conditions of certification attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix I; The variance request from the Department of Environmental Regulation's surface water quality standards be granted in accordance with the conditions of certification which are attached hereto; The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Rule 1-10.04A governing noise requirements be granted for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days from the commencement of steam blowing operations, conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to notify the affected members of the public prior to the steam blowing operation; The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards contained in Rules 1-5.04,2. (general), 1-5.04,2.n (chromium), 1-5.04,2.q (iron), and 1-5.04,2r (arsenic) be granted for the life of the certification for Big Bend Unit No. 4; and The variance request from Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission surface water quality standards pertaining to lead, Rule 1-5.04,2.p., be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin and Robert P. Murray Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer NW Lakeland, Florida 33802 Louis F. Hubener Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Cone, Jr. Blain and Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Post Office Box 399 Tampa, Florida 33601 C., Laurence Keesey Department of Veteran and Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur C. Canaday General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Prentice C. Pruitt Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Administrator, Power Plant Siting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA In the Matter Of: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER PLANT SITING APPLICATION, BIG BEND STATION CASE NO. 80-1723EPP UNIT NUMBER 4 P.A. 79-12. /
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the proposed recommended orders of the parties and the references thereto, the following are relevant facts: The Tarpon Springs General Hospital is a nonprofit general, medical and surgical hospital located at 1395 South Pinellas Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida, about two and one-half miles south of the Pasco County, Florida line. It has been in existence for some 51 years and is now operated under a five year lease program operated by the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation. The Foundation consists of representatives of local religious, civic and fraternal organizations in the area. It has a full two year accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The facility is licensed for 126 beds, but it operates regularly as a 111 bed hospital with an eight (8) bed ward used only in emergency situations. The original space for the remaining 7 licensed beds is used primarily for office space and medical records. The eight (8) bed ward is generally used only during the months of January, February and March and on an emergency basis. The hospital treats a high percentage (about 70 percent) of geriatric patients and 80 percent of the revenue is from medicare. During the past year, most of the patient (approximately 58 percent) came from Pasco County. The hospital has 55 or 56 physicians, two general surgeons and five specialists who have staff privileges. Approximately 28 physicians admit to Tarpon Springs General Hospital. It has bilingual employees and at least two doctors with staff privileges who speak Greek, required by some of the numerous residents of Greek decent who live in the area. On or about August 5, 1977, Petitioner-Applicant applied for a certificate of need proposing a 40 bed expansion program for the Tarpon Springs General Hospital with renovations and/or expansion of laboratory, dietary, medical records, radiology, general storage, recovery room, business office, emergency room, and operation rooms. A total expenditure of six million six hundred thousand dollars ($6,600,000) for construction and equipment is projected. In addition there would be 600 thousand dollars ($600,000) fur possible refinancing and 300 thousand dollars ($300,000) for a required sinking fund. Funding would be a 7.5 million dollar bond issue. The proposed service area would not be changed from servicing an area from Palm Harbor to the south, Hillsborough County line to the east, and New Port Richey city limits to the north. This area accounts for some 85 percent of current admissions to the hospital. The hospital refers all obstetrical, most neurosurgical, most psychiatry, and complicated trauma cases to other institutions in the area. The proposed program of Tarpon Springs General Hospital is pointed toward general medical/surgical and anticipates referrals from the area hospital once the acute state of patient hospitalization is over but still in need of hospital care. The Petitioner justified the application for the 40 beds and ancillary services by contending that the progressive patient care program is uniquely adaptable to the area with its aged, multiple health care problems and family involvement situation. It contends that with the implementation of the progressive patient care and outpatient care concept it would be the only such general/surgical hospital available to Pinellas and Pasco counties; be more accessible; and lead to a cost-efficient delivery of health care services. It expects that costs will increase for services and additional facilities but no increase to patients is expected until 1981-82. Petitioner projects the need of 108 full time employees, approximately a third of whom will be professionally trained personnel. Applicant indicates there would be no difficulty to recruit the needed personnel although this is questioned by Respondent. No evidence was submitted except that there was a $66,602 expenditure for contract nursing services in Applicant's Medicare cost report which is an expenditure normally made when professional nurses are not available for full time employment. The estimated construction-to-operation of the project would be in the Spring or Summer of 1980. Witnesses testified that it would be fair to say that three years from date of granting of the certificate of need is more realistic. The certificate of need was denied upon review by the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc., and the Office of Community Medical Facilities. A letter of denial was sent to Mr. Peter N. Geilich, Administrator of Tarpon Springs Central Hospital. The reasons for denial were stated in Joint Exhibit 4, as follows: Inconsistency with the 1977 Florida State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities. This Plan pro- jects an acute care hospital bed need in Pinellas County by 1982 or 3, 485 beds. As of 1 July 1977, per the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Annual Licensure List, there were 4,451 licensed acute care hospital beds in Pinellas County. This indi- cates that Pinellas County in already over-bedded by 966 beds against the projected needs by 1982. There are already three existing hospi- tals (Tarpon Springs General, Community Hos- pital of New Port Richey, and West Pasco) providing service to those persons residing in your proposed service area. Records reflect that these hospitals are available and accessible to the residents of your proposed service area and these hospitals have not yet been utilized at their capacity. Petitioner contends: Both the Pinellas County Project Review Committee and the Pasco Advisory Committee voted in favor of the proposed expansion of the hospital. That the unfavorable decision of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was apparently based on the fact that Tarpon Springs General Hospital is located in Pinellas County. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital is within two and one-half miles of the Pasco County line and its service area includes, in main part, Pasco County. The hospitals that are in close proximity to Tarpon Springs General Hospital do not adequately serve the area for the following reasons: The peculiar ethnic makeup of the community with a language barrier and close family involvement needs the long established hospital. The character of the surrounding hospitals, one is a proprietary or for-profit hospital and one has indigents as its primary obligation. As to the criteria of Florida Administrative Code, 10-5.11: That Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc. has not formulated a plan, but the application of Petitioner is consistent with the State Medical Facilities Plan which considers Pinellas County over-bedded but projects that Pasco County is under-bedded. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital has a record of planning and development although no formal plan has been adopted. That until Florida Gulf Health Systems, Inc., adopts its health systems plans and annual implementation plan, the plan available should be used. That because of the growth of the area and the area's peculiar need for primary hospital care for the elderly people served, the need is justified. That if a nursing home were in the area that Tarpon Springs General Hospital would not only refer to the home but it would receive from the home and the bed load would not be reduced. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital is "cost conscious", has at present a low daily rate and uses volunteers and shares services with other hospitals. That the community supports the project and the plans are to finance with revenue bonds. That no service expansion is planned and the relationship to the hospitals within the service area that include hospitals in Pasco County will be maintained. That the beds are needed because of the local traffic conditions which have an impact on transfers. The age of patients and ethnic flavor make an increase in beds desirable. That manpower would be no problem. That special needs for medical and health professions is not applicable. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital does not contemplate health maintenance organizations. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital does not contemplate becoming a participant in biomedical or behavioral research. The cost of Tarpon Springs General Hospital is currently one of the lowest in cost in West Central Florida and that the applicant does not include more operating rooms than it now has. That during fiscal year 977 the hospital operated at 80 percent occupancy based on 111 acceptable beds. The Respondent contends: That the Tarpon Springs General Hospital is in Pinellas County, Florida, which has 23 hospitals and there are approximately 1,100 hospital beds In excess in Pinellas County. That although the State Plan states that Pasco is potentially under bedded 54 beds and that approximately 58 percent of Applicant's patients come from Pasco County, a survey performed shortly before the hearings in October, 1977, showed that there were at least 240 accessible beds available to the patients that week in Applicant's service area. That Tarpon Springs General Hospital is licensed for 126 beds and that it considers only 111 "acceptable" and uses an eight bed ward only in an emergency. Respondent contends that Petitioner could and should put the 15 beds in operation. That in 1975 occupancy based on licensed capacity was 61 percent, in 1976, 65 percent and in the first eight months of 1977, which includes three months of heavy demand was 73 percent. That the occupancy figures Petitioner states "is based on 111 beds it feels are acceptable." That the plans of Petitioner include replacing its four operating rooms which is a costly project and that the few surgeons that would use it do not justify the cost. That there are three other hospitals within a ten to twenty minute drive from the center of the area of population. That there are less costly, more efficient and more appropriate alternatives than the one the Applicant submitted. Respondent suggests an increase in bed capacity to the 126 licensed number which it has discussed with the Petitioner, and would cost between one and two million dollars. As another alternative, Respondent suggests development of a nursing home in the area. That the cost to the patient would ultimately increase between $141 and $212 per patient as the long term implementation for the $6,600.000 expansion project. That although Medicare would pay a substantial portion of the cost adjustment,, the money for Medicare is a cost to the taxpayer and must be considered by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's decision to deny Petitioner's capital expenditure proposal be affirmed. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gayle Smith Swedmark, Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 George L. Waas, Esquire Office of General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The matters here presented concern the challenges by the named Petitioners to Rule Sections 17-3.061(2)(b), 17-3.111 (11), 17-3.121(14), 17-4.02(17),(19), and 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative Code, related to definitions of "submerged lands" and "transitional zone of a submerged land" and the requirements set forth by rule provisions for permits related to dredge and fill activities in "submerged lands" and in the "transitional zone of submerged land" and water quality in Florida. The rule challenges are in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioners claim that the rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners do not, by the challenges, question the procedures utilized in the promulgation of the subject rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Baker Cut Point Company, is a corporation which owns real estate in Key Largo, Florida, and James C. Dougherty owns the company. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is a governmental body which has been granted certain regulatory powers, to include the responsibility for requiring environmental permits for certain activities over which the Respondent has jurisdiction. In furtherance of that responsibility, the Respondent has promulgated the aforementioned rules which are the subject of this rules challenge case. The Petitioners have been subjected to the terms and conditions of the aforementioned rule provisions in the course of their application for environmental permits for developments in property in Key Largo, Florida, under DER File Nos. 44-21381 and 44-14356. Those matters were the subject of a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings' Cases Nos. 80-760 and 80-1055. The hearings in those cases were conducted on the dates described in this order and were held in view of the disputed material facts between the parties occasioned by the Respondent's stated intention to deny the permits based upon the Respondent's belief that the activities contemplated within the permit process would be in violation of certain regulatory provisions, to include those rule provisions which are the subject of this action. Throughout the process of permit review and the hearing de novo, and in response to the revisions to the original permit requests, the Respondent has continued to claim jurisdiction in keeping with the rule provisions at issue. The Baker Cut Point Company DER File No. 44-14356 letter of intent to deny dates from April 3, 1980, and the corresponding letter of intent to deny related to DER File No. 44-21381, James C. Dougherty, dates from May 27, 1980.
