Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to variances from the requirements of Rule 40D-0.27(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact William E. Klein (Petitioner) owns two water wells, both in Tampa, Florida. Each water well serves three rental units which are also owned by the Petitioner. One well is located at 302 East North Bay Street. The second well is located at 4113 North Suwanee Street. Each water well is classified as a "limited use community public water system" as defined by Rule 10D-4.024(13)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The wells have been in existence for perhaps as long as eighty years. As of January 1, 1993, limited use community public water system wells must obtain permits to operate. Permits are issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The relevant permit requirements include water testing, submission of an application and a site plan, and payment of a fee. By February 23, 1996, the Department was aware of the Petitioner's wells and had provided notice of the permit requirements to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has met the water testing requirements, but has not submitted applications, site plans, or applicable fees related to these two wells. On May 30, 1996, the Petitioner filed applications for variances, seeks to be excused from submitting the applications, site plans and fees. On June 3, 1996, the Department denied the Petitioner's requests for variances. As grounds for the variance requests, the Petitioner cites financial hardship which will be imposed by payment of the fees. According to the stipulation filed by the parties, the application fee for each well is $110. Of the fee, $75 is retained by the state and $35 is retained by Hillsborough County, where the Petitioner's wells are located. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner is entitled to the requested variances. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of site plans. The Petitioner may prepare and submit site plans without assistance. The evidence fails to establish that there are any costs related to submission of a completed applications for permits. The evidence fails to establish that the total fee of $220 related to the issuance of well permits for six rental units will cause a financial hardship for the Petitioner. At most, the evidence indicates that the payment of the fee may reduce the Petitioner's profit from the rental units.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's requests for the variances at issue in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William E. Klein, Pro Se Thomas Lewis, Representative 8716 Ruth Place Tampa, Florida 33604 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614
The Issue There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.
Findings Of Fact Parties other than SOBAC Poseidon Resources, LLC wholly owns TBD as one of Poseidon Resources' subsidiaries. Poseidon Resources formed TBD, the successor to S&W Water, LLC, as a special purpose project company to properly staff and finance the desalination project. TBW entered into a 30-year purchase agreement with TBD (then known as S & W Water, LLC) in 1999 to build, own and operate the desalination facility. Poseidon Resources operates as a privately-held company and all stockholders are major corporations. Poseidon Resources opened for business in 1995 and has over $300 million in water processing assets under management. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") delegated its NPDES permitting program to the State of Florida and is run by DEP. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility serving Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC owns and operates the Big Bend generating station, an electric plant consisting of four coal-fired steam units having a combined capacity of approximately 1800 megawatts. SWFWMD is a water management district in the State of Florida. SWFWMD reviews and acts upon water use permit applications and protects and manages the water and water- related resources within its boundaries. TBW and all of its Member Governments are within the geographical and legal jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, a member government of TBW, and is located within the jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a major source of the groundwater used by TBW. TBW is a regional public water supply authority. TBW is the sole and exclusive wholesale supplier of potable water for all its member governments of TBW, which are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the City of New Port Richey, the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Tampa. TBW serves approximately 2 million customers. SOBAC SOBAC was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation in February 2000. The stated mission of SOBAC is to protect the environmental quality of the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area, and to ensure drinking water for SOBAC members in the Tampa Bay area. SOBAC was formed by a group of people residing primarily in the area of Apollo Beach. Apollo Beach is a waterfront residential community that was created by dredge and fill of wetlands, estuary, and bay bottom bordering the "Big Bend" area of Tampa Bay, where the community terminates in a "hammerhead" of fill over what was once a seagrass bed. Across the North Apollo Beach "Embayment," formed by the "hammerhead," is the discharge canal of TEC's Big Bend power plant. A corrugated metal barrier partially separates the embayment from the discharge canal. This discharge canal also will receive TBD's discharge after re-mixing with TEC's discharge. SOBAC initially was formed out of concern for the environment in the Big Bend area of Tampa Bay. However, there is no requirement that SOBAC members live in the Apollo Beach area, or even in the vicinity of Tampa Bay, and SOBAC's geographic area of concern has broadened somewhat beyond the Apollo Beach area. In order to become a member of SOBAC, one need only sign a card. Prospective members are asked to donate $5 on signing up. Most members donate $5 or more. However, the donation is not mandatory. There is no requirement that members attend any meetings, or participate in any SOBAC activities. Section 3.1 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By-Laws makes "active" membership contingent on payment of "the prescribed [annual] dues." Section 3.2 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By- Laws requires SOBAC to establish annual dues, but no annual dues have been paid because no annual dues structure has ever been established. As a result, no annual dues have been "prescribed," and "active" membership does not require payment of annual dues. SOBAC claims to have approximately 1,000 members. These include all those who have ever become members. Approximately 700 live in the Appollo Beach area; approximately 50-75 of these members form the "core" of active members. Approximately 50-100 members live outside the Tampa Bay area; some of these outsiders probably are among the approximately 100 who are members by virtue of SOBAC's reciprocity agreement with another association called "Friends of the River." SOBAC has never surveyed its membership to determine how its members actually use Tampa Bay. However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that a substantial number of its members, especially among those who reside in the Apollo Beach area, enjoy use of the waters and wetlands of the Big Bend area for recreational activities such as boating and fishing. For that reason, if the activities to be permitted by DEP in these proceedings were to cause environmental damage, a substantial number of SOBAC's members would be affected substantially and more than most residents of distant reaches of the Tampa Bay area. Background of Desalination Project In 1998, the predecessor agency to TBW (the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority), the six Member Governments and SWFWMD entered into an agreement specifically addressing impacts to natural systems through the development of new, non- groundwater sources, and the reduction of permitted groundwater withdrawal capacity from TBW's eleven existing wellfields from the then permitted capacity of 192 million gallons per day (mgd) to 121 mgd by December 31, 2002 (the "Partnership Agreement"). Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the existing water use permits for TBW's 11 specified wellfields were consolidated into a single permit under which TBW is the sole permittee. Prior to execution of the Partnership Agreement, the existing permits for these 11 wellfields allowed for cumulative withdrawals totaling approximately 192 mgd. Upon execution of the Partnership Agreement, the consolidated permit immediately reduced allowed withdrawals to no more than 158 mgd and required that wellfield pumping from the 11 wellfields be further reduced to no more than 121 mgd by December 31, 2002, and then to no more than 90 mgd by December 31, 2007. These withdrawal reductions are necessary to reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by excessive withdrawals from the 11 wellfields, the majority of which are located in Pasco County. In order to replace the reduction of groundwater withdrawals, TBW adopted a Master Water Plan that provides for the development of specified new, alternative sources of potable water. The seawater desalination facility ("Desal Facility") is one of the cornerstone components of the Master Water Plan. This Facility will furnish 25 mgd of new water resources for the Tampa Bay area and must be in service by December 31, 2002, in order to meet the potable water needs of the residents of the Tampa Bay area. In exchange for the groundwater withdrawal reductions, SWFWMD agreed to contribute up to $183 million towards the development of new water sources that are diverse, reliable and cost-effective. SWFWMD has agreed to co-fund up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the Desal Facility. To comply with the terms and conditions of water use permits it has received from SWFWMD for other water withdrawals in the region, TBW must increase the water sources from which it withdraws water for distribution to its Member Governments in a timely manner. The Desal Facility is the essential means by which these permitting requirements can be met. For the past two years, the Tampa Bay area has been experiencing historic low rainfall and drought conditions. The Desal Facility is supported not only by TBW and its Member Governments, but also by SWFWMD since it is a drought-proof source of supply which has the greatest ability of any new water supply source to allow TBW to meet its members' potable water supply needs while also reducing pumpage from the existing 11 wellfields. In addition to its being a drought-proof source of potable water supply, the Facility will also provide diversity and reliability for TBW's sources of supply, and is a source that is easily expandable to provide additional potable supply that may be necessary in the future. Prior to deciding to proceed with a desalination project, TBW conducted four separate studies to look at the potential individual and cumulative impacts of a desalination facility on Tampa Bay and the surrounding areas, and in particular to evaluate the changes in baywide salinity due to the desalination discharge alone and in combination with the river withdrawals occasioned by other projects. Commencing in 1997, TBW conducted a procurement process that culminated in the award in July 1999 of a contract to S & W Water, LLC, now known as Tampa Bay Desal, LLC, to design, build, own, operate, and eventually transfer to TBW a seawater desalination plant to provide potable water to Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties and to the Cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg for 30 years. TBD's Desal Facility is co-located with the Big Bend Power Station owned and operated by TEC on the northeast side of Hillsborough Bay, in Hillsborough County, Florida. By discharging the concentrate from the Desal Facility to the power plant cooling water prior to its discharge to the power plant discharge canal, environmental impacts from the concentrate are minimized, and disturbance of the discharge canal is avoided. The costs avoided by utilizing the existing intake and outflow from the TEC power plant are reflected in the lower cost of the water to Tampa Bay Water, and ultimately its Member Governments. TBW is contractually bound to TBD to purchase all of the potable water that is produced by the Desal Facility for distribution to its Member Governments and to purchase the entire Facility in the future. With the exception of the NPDES permit at issue, TBD has obtained all of the over 20 other permits which are required for the construction and operation of the desalination facility. TBD has already invested approximately $20 million in this project. The total estimated capital cost of the desalination facility is $110 million. TBD has obtained financing of $42 million and expects to acquire permanent financing in the month of October 2001. SWFWMD agreed to subsidize up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the desalination facility payable to TBW over the term of agreement with TBD. TBD is contractually bound to TBW to complete and fully operate the desalination facility by December 2002. TBD Desalination Process Overview of Process In the instant case, desalination is performed through reverse osmosis ("RO"), a mechanical process wherein pretreated water under very high pressure is pressed against a very fine membrane such that only pure water can pass through it. The vast majority of salt molecules and other substance are eliminated from the water. The RO process is not heat or chemical driven. No additional heat load is being added as a result of the desalination discharge, and the desalination plant will actually result in a reduced heat load to the bay. The desalination facility will withdraw approximately 44.5 mgd of raw water from Units 3 and 4 of TEC's Big Bend cooling water system, produce approximately 25 mgd of product water for transmission to the regional water supply system, and discharge approximately 19.5 mgd of clarified backwash and concentrate water equally into each of the power plant cooling water tunnels for dilution and release into the discharge canal. During abnormal power plant operations including times when Units 3 or 4 are not in operation and during the summer months when the normal supply water intake temperature exceeds the operating temperature range of the RO membranes, a portion of the source water will be withdrawn from an auxiliary supply water system. The auxiliary supply water system consists of a supply pump and pipeline that withdraws water from a location downstream of the fine-mesh screens for Units 3 and 4. The total combined bay withdrawal flow for the power plant and the desalination facility cannot exceed 1.40 billion gallons per day ("bgd"). This limitation ensures that entrainment does not exceed the levels previously permitted for the site, and a new entrainment study pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act is not required. Pretreatment Process The desalination intake water is pretreated in a two- stage gravity filtration process with chemical additives. During pretreatment, ferric sulfates will be added to the desalination intake water to coagulate and capture suspended solids, organic material, and metals that exist in the raw water supply. In this first stage of the pretreatment process, the intake water runs through an aerated course sand filter. Aeration enhances the coagulative process and assists in the capture of organics, suspended solids, and metals. Aeration also occurs in stage two, which uses a fine sand filter pretreatment process. The backwash water from stage two recirculates to the stage one treatment process. The pretreated waters exits through a five micron cartridge filtration prior to entering the RO process. The aerated pretreatment filter backwash water from the pretreatment stage one pretreatment will be sent to a discharge sump for initial settling and then to a clarifier and filter press to remove excess water. Approximately 14 wet tons a day which includes organics, suspended solids, and metals that are removed through the coagulative process and captured from the gravity filters are removed off-site to a landfill. The desal concentrate and clarified backwash water will be combined in a discharge sump or wet well prior to entering into a discharge line manifolded to equally distribute the concentrate discharge into all of the available cooling water outflow tunnels or conduits of the power plant discharge. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Treatment The RO desalination process consists of a two-stage pass of the pretreated water through the reverse osmosis membranes. The RO pumps will force the water through the RO membranes at pressures ranging from 600 to 1000 pounds per square inch (psi). As a result of the RO process, approximately 25 mgd of purified water, also known as permeate, will be produced for delivery to TBW. TBD anticipates cleaning its membranes twice per year, perhaps less, due to the high level of pretreatment. Periodic cleaning removes silt and scale from the membrane surface. Dilute solutions of citric acid, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, sodium tripolyphosphate, or sodium dodecyclbenzene compromise the constituents of various cleaning solutions, with the actual cleaning solution used dependent upon the actual performance of the system once it is placed in operation. Once the cleaning cycle is complete, the spent cleaning solution will be purged from the feed tank, membrane vessels, and piping and diverted into a scavenger tank for off- site disposal. Clean product water (permeate) will be fed to the feed tank and pumped into the RO membrane vessels. This process will continue until the pH of the purge water meets the Class III marine water quality criteria. The membranes will be rinsed with brine concentrate and permeate, and the rinse water will be directed to the wet well for discharge, with the concentrate into the TEC cooling water stream. TBD determined the chemical characterization of the membrane cleaning solution discharge. Cleaning solutions are not discharged in detectable concentrations. As further assurance, the permit requires toxicity testing immediately after membrane cleaning. Dilution of Discharge Water Co-locating the desalination facility with TEC's Big Bend power station allows the desalination concentrate to be diluted with TEC's cooling water prior to discharge into Tampa Bay. The point of injection of the desalination discharge will be located approximately 72 feet upstream of the point of discharge to the discharge canal to ensure complete mixing of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. This provides reasonable assurance that the desalination discharge will be completely mixed within the cooling water conduits. If all four TEC units are in operation and TBD is producing 25 mgd of finished water, the approximate dilution ratio of the desalination concentrate with TEC cooling water is 70:1. Historical TEC data indicates that a dilution ration of greater than 20:1 will occur more than 99.6 percent of the time, and a dilution ration of greater than 28:1 will occur more than 95 percent of the time. The dilution limitations in the proposed permit are more stringent than those required in Rule 62-302.530(18). The permitted dilution ratio complies with Rule 62- 660.400(2)(d) because it takes into account the nature, volume, and frequency of the proposed discharge, including any possible synergistic effects with other pollutants which may be present in the receiving water body. Comparisons of the Antigua, Key West, and Cyprus facilities are not applicable because those desalination facilities lack the initial dilution that will exist at TEC's Big Bend site. The proposed permit requires a 20:1 minimum dilution ratio at any given time, which may occur for no more than 384 hours per calendar year, and with the further limitation that the discharge at the 20:1 minimum dilution ratio shall not exceed 384 hours in any given 60-day period. At all other times, a minimum dilution ratio of 28:1 must be maintained. To ensure proper dilution and system operation, computer instrumentation in the desal facility will interface with TEC to continuously monitor the operations of TEC's four cooling tower condenser units. If any of the pumps shut down, an alarm will sound at the desalination facility and the computer system will automatically shut down the concentrate discharge to that specific condenser unit discharge tunnel. Further, the desalination plant will employ approximately 12 employees, with a minimum of two employees on duty at all times. TEC Permit Modification Big Bend power station has four coal-fired steam electric generating units. The power station is cooled by water that is taken in from Tampa Bay through two intake structures which are located along TEC's intake canal. One intake structure feeds cooling water to electrical power units 1 and 2 and the other feeds units 3 and 4. After flowing through the condensers, the cooling flows are combined into four separate discharge tunnels which outfall into TEC's discharge canal. The intake structure for Units 3 and 4 is equipped with fine-mesh screens and an organismal collection and return system that has been approved for use by DEP. The purpose of TEC's permit modification is to alter the internal piping in the facility to accommodate the desalination plant at the Big Bend site. TEC's permit modification allows for placement of an intake pipe from TEC's cooling water pipes to the desalination plant and a return pipe downstream from the intake pipe for the return of the desalination concentrate to TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels prior to outfall in the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification also allows for the placement of an auxiliary intake line by TBD to take additional water from behind the intake of units 3 and 4 up to TEC's maximum permitted limit of 1.4 billion gallons a day. The TEC proposed permit is conditioned to require TEC to maintain the structural integrity of both the steel sheet pile wall on the discharge canal and the breakwater barrier North of the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification does not request any changes to the operations of the Big Bend Generating Station. SOBAC Issues and Concerns SOBAC raised numerous issues and concerns in its petitions in these cases and in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation. However, some issues were elimination by rulings adverse to SOBAC during prehearing proceedings and final hearing. Based on the evidence SOBAC sought to elicit at final hearing and issues raised in its Proposed Recommended Order, other, earlier SOBAC issues and concerns appear to have been dropped. Remaining are essentially the following: increased salinity due to TBD discharge; alleged decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) from higher salinity; impacts of higher salinity and alleged decreased DO on marine plants and animals; alleged release of metals from sediments due to higher salinity and alleged lower DO, and effects on marine plants and animals; alleged monitoring deficiencies; alleged failure to utilize available technologies to lower salinity and raise DO; alleged deficient financial assurances; and various alleged resulting DEP rule violations. Description of Tampa Bay: Physical Properties The portion of Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay near the Big Bend facility is classified a Class III water body. Tampa Bay is a naturally drowned river valley, meaning that a deep channel exists as a result of natural forces. However, the channel has been deepened to 45 feet or greater to allow large ships to navigate the bay. This deepening of the channel increases the water flow of the head of the bay with the open gulf waters and allows this residual circulation to move more new water from the open Gulf of Mexico up into the bay. Ordinarily, circulation moves salt water up Tampa Bay and spreads it out onto the flanks of the bay where it then mixes with the freshwater. To complete this circulation, the water then flows back out towards the mouth of the bay, primarily along its flanks and shallower parts in the upper part of the water column. The water in Tampa Bay tends to flow faster in its deeper parts, both coming in and going out, and relatively slower in the shallow areas. The majority of flow of freshwater inflow occurs at the bay's flanks as can be seen very clearly in the salinity distributions. Mixing and Stratification Since the development of Tampa Bay from the 1880 condition to the 1972 and 1985 conditions, there is more mixing and exchange of water. Due to shoreline fills for development, such as Apollo Beach, there is less water that now comes in the bay than in the predevelopment condition. Tampa Bay is a fairly well mixed system from top to bottom. This is because the action of the tides basically acts like a big mix master. The bay is fairly shallow, less than four meters in depth on average. The tidal velocities can be as strong as two knots or about a meter per second. When the strong velocity pushes through shallow water, there is extensive overturning, where the bottom water is churned to the top and gets mixed very efficiently. That is very well seen in the observations during dry periods. Over 100 points in Tampa Bay were measured for temperature and salinity top, middle and bottom, and showed that they were very uniform throughout the bay. During periods of large volumes of freshwater input into Tampa Bay, freshwater is pumping into the bay faster than the tidal mixing can mix it from top to bottom. Therefore, in parts of Tampa Bay significant stratification is seen during many times in the wet season. During those times when rainfall is not as prevalent, tidal mixing once again dominates and the bay returns to a more well mixed system. The average tidal fluctuation for Tampa Bay is a range of two to three feet. Salinity As the tide in Tampa Bay comes in, it brings saltier water from the mouth of the bay toward the head of the bay, causing salinities to rise. As the tide recedes, bringing out fresher water from farther up the bay, salinities decrease. Over an individual tidal cycle, particularly during the wet season, a four or five part per thousand ("ppt") change in salinity will occur between a rising tide and a falling tide. During the dry season, tidal flushing is not as significant to salinity levels because not much difference exists in salinity from the head of the bay to the mouth of the bay. Even during the dry season, there is a one to two ppt change over a six to twelve-hour period in any given day. During the dry periods in 1990, salinities elevated up to about 33 ppt, with very little stratification. During the rainy periods, in June and July, salinities dropped rather drastically. In some areas, salinity dropped as low as to 20 to 22 ppt. However, in spite of these drastic seasonal differences, significant variation in salinity occurs as a result of tidal exchange. The Big Bend area is split by the dividing line between Hillsborough Bay and what has been classified Middle Tampa Bay. The salinity for Hillsborough Bay from 1974 through June 2001 at the surface ranges from 0.4 ppt to 38.2 ppt. The middle portion of the same water column contained a range from 2.5 ppt to 39.2 ppt, and the bottom portion showed a range from 3.9 ppt to 37.2 ppt. The average salinities during this time frame were as follows: top 24.2 ppt, middle 24.3 ppt and bottom 25.3 ppt. In the portion of Tampa Bay called Middle Tampa Bay, the surface level salinity ranged from 6.8 ppt to 38.2 ppt. At middle depth, salinities ranged from 7.4 ppt to 38.8 ppt. The bottom level salinities ranged from 11.9 ppt to 39.6 ppt. This is a large range of salinities. Tampa Bay near the Big Bend Area In the area near the Big Bend facility, the Mote Marine Laboratory survey data reflects that the salinity during May and June 2000 reached 33.4 ppt. Further, Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that the North Apollo Embayment area salinities were well mixed vertically throughout the system. The total volume of water exchanged into the North Apollo Embayment and associated canals during a mean tide is approximately 35 percent of the total volume of all water contained in that area. This tidal exchange occurs twice per day. The double diffusion process does not create high salinity in the bottom of the water column in the North Apollo Embayment. The double diffusion process, without any external influence, would lead to both surface and bottom layers of the water column reaching salinity equilibrium. Further, the turbulent mixing that occurs due to tidal processes and wind- induced mixing dominates over the double diffusion process. The Mote Marine Laboratory study conducted between May and early June 2000 did not detect any significant salinity stratification in the area near the Big Bend facility. Vertical stratification of salinity does occur but typically only during the periods of significant freshwater inflow and not in extreme drought or dry conditions. None of the Mote Marine Laboratory data detected any pockets of high salinity water or significant density stratification in the North Apollo Embayment. Estuarine Characteristics Tampa Bay is an estuary. Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of saltwater that receive freshwater runoff from drainage or riverine inflow, which measurably dilutes the salinity levels in the estuary. As a result, salinity levels in estuaries typically are highly variable, ranging from 0 ppt where rivers flow into estuaries, to as high as 40 ppt under conditions of low freshwater input or at estuarine mouths where they connect to the sea. There are naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/l in parts of Tampa Bay, including at Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission ("EPC") monitoring stations 9, 80, and 81, which are the closest stations to the proposed discharge. Dissolved oxygen in the bay decreases at night because photosynthesis ceases and respiration exceeds production. Other environmental parameters are also highly variable in estuaries. Therefore, the organisms that inhabit estuaries have adapted to tolerate these highly variable conditions. Estuarine organisms have adaptive means for tolerating changing salinity levels, either by conforming their internal salinity levels to the ambient salinity levels, or by actively regulating their internal salinity levels by intake or excretion of salt. Organisms that are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities within the estuary are termed euryhaline organisms. Essentially all of the common organisms in estuaries, including the Tampa Bay estuary, are euryhaline organisms, and therefore are capable of tolerating and living in a wide range of salinities and salinity changes that occur due to tidal, meteorological, and other natural forces in the estuarine environment. Extensive baseline biological studies performed on Tampa Bay reveal that the most common species in the Tampa Bay estuary tolerate salinity levels ranging from 5 ppt to 40 ppt. Seagrasses Five species of seagrass inhabit Tampa Bay. Seagrasses are photosynthetic underwater flowering plants that are typically limited in occurrence and distribution by the water clarity. This limits the depth at which seagrasses can grow. In Tampa Bay, seagrasses are limited to the fringes of the Bay, and are largely limited to depths of approximately three feet, although they can live in depths of up to six feet in clearer parts of the Bay. Seagrasses are very sensitive to increases in nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients encourage algae growth, resulting in competitive stress in seagrasses. Due to poor water quality caused by sewage discharge, dredging and filling, and other activities in the Bay, seagrass distribution in Tampa Bay decreased from an historic coverage of approximately 80,000 acres in 1950 to approximately 20,000 acres by 1982. Improvements in water quality, largely due to sewage treatment improvements, have allowed seagrasses to naturally recolonize to approximately 27,000 acres coverage, as of 1994. Wave energy affects seagrass distribution. Seagrasses cannot colonize and survive in areas subject to significant wave energy. For example, the portion of Tampa Bay dredged and filled to create the Apollo Beach "hammerhead" area was once comprised of a broad shallow-water shelf that diminished wave energy, allowing dense seagrass flats to cover the shelf area. Destruction of the broad shallow-water shelf with fill to create the Apollo Beach hammerhead has converted the area to a high wave energy system that is unsuitable for seagrass colonization and growth. Consequently, the only seagrasses inhabiting the Big Bend area are found approximately one kilometer north of the Big Bend power plant, in an area known as "The Kitchen," and approximately one kilometer south of the Apollo Beach hammerhead area. Additionally, there are ephemeral patches of seagrass inhabiting some limited areas of the North Apollo Embayment. Seagrasses are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities. They have specialized cells that enable them to deal with salt stress and with broad ranges of and fluctuations in salinity. These adaptations enable them to survive and thrive in estuarine environments. Of the seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay, one species, Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), occurs in salinity ranges from zero to 40 ppt. Manatee grass, Syringodium filiforme, is most productive in salinities between 5 ppt and 45 ppt. The other three species, Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), Halophila engelmannii (star grass), and Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), tolerate salinity ranges from approximately 5 ppt to 60 ppt. Seagrasses better tolerate higher salinity levels than lower salinity levels. Lower salinity levels are usually indicative of increased stream and land freshwater runoff, which usually is accompanied by increased turbidity and lower water clarity. Four of the five seagrass species that inhabit Tampa Bay typically reproduce asexually by producing rhizomes, rather than by flowering and producing seeds. It is not completely clear why seagrasses in Tampa Bay reproduce asexually rather than by flowering and seed production. However, recent research indicates that climatic temperature is the controlling factor for flower and seed production. In South Florida, where the climate is warmer, seagrasses reproduce by flowering and seed production. In Tampa Bay, the lower winter temperatures appear to be the limiting factor with respect to successful flower and seed production in seagrasses. Recent studies by the University of South Florida ("USF") marine laboratory indicate that naturally occurring fungal diseases may also limit successful flowering and seed production in seagrasses in Tampa Bay. Since most seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay tolerate and thrive in salinities of up to 60 ppt, the higher salinity levels in the estuary do not appear to adversely affect the ability of seagrasses to reproduce. In fact, the lower salinity levels, below 5 ppt, stress seagrasses and are more likely to adversely affect reproduction than do higher salinity levels. Mangroves Three major species of mangrove inhabit the Tampa Bay area: the red mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove. Mangroves inhabit the intertidal area, so they are subjected to daily tidal flooding and drying. Consequently, they must tolerate a wide range of variability in salinity levels and in water availability. Most mangroves tolerate soil salinity levels up to 60 ppt, close to twice the salinity of Tampa Bay. Mangrove mortality due to salinity does not occur until soil levels approach and exceed 70 ppt salinity. Mangroves are also adaptable to, and inhabit, freshwater environments. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Plankton are life stages or forms of larger organisms, or organisms that have no ability for major locomotion, so they spend their entire life spans floating and drifting with the currents. Plankton are extremely productive in that they reproduce in very large numbers within very short life spans. Holoplankton are planktonic organisms that spend their entire lives in planktonic form. Examples include diatoms, which are a type of phytoplankton, and copepods, which are a type of zooplankton. Meroplankton are "temporary" plankton that drift with the currents in juvenile or larval stages, then either settle out of the water column and metamorphose into an attached form (such as barnacles) or metamorphose into mobile life forms (such as crabs, shrimp, and fish species). Phytoplankton are planktonic plant species and life forms. Zooplankton are planktonic animal species and life forms. Zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. There are approximately 300 species of phytoplankton, and numerous species and forms of zooplankton, found in Tampa Bay. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species inhabiting Tampa Bay are euryhaline species capable of tolerating the wide range of salinity levels and abrupt salinity changes that occur naturally in the estuarine system. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species and life forms in Tampa Bay tolerate salinity levels ranging from zero to 40 ppt. They appear to be more tolerant of the higher end than the lower end of this salinity range. Manatee The manatee is the only endangered or threatened species identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as inhabiting the area where the desalination plant is proposed to be located. Manatees congregate at the Big Bend Power Station during colder months because they are attracted to the power plant's warmer water discharge. Manatees are considered to be estuarine species, but they have very broad salinity tolerance ranges. They migrate into and out of freshwater springs, through estuaries, into the Gulf of Mexico, and down to the Ten Thousand Islands, where hypersaline conditions frequently exist. Manatees routinely expose themselves to and tolerate salinities ranging from zero to more than 40 ppt. Fish The fish populations in Tampa Bay are comprised of a large number of marine euryhaline species. Due to their ability to osmoregulate their internal salinity levels, these fish species can inhabit salinity ranges from 5 ppt to as high as 40 ppt. Extremely extensive monitoring and sampling programs are currently being conducted in Tampa Bay and specifically in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power Station. The Hillsborough County EPC, SWFWMD, TBW, the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), the Florida Marine Research Institute, USF, and Mote Marine Laboratory conduct separate biological monitoring programs that sample and monitor numerous biological parameters, including invertebrate infaunal and epifaunal species composition, abundance, and distribution; zooplankton and phytoplankton species composition, abundance, and distribution; emergent and submerged vegetation species composition, abundance, and distribution; and fish species composition, abundance, and distribution. These monitoring programs, which collect and analyze biological data from many areas in the Tampa Bay estuarine system, extensively monitor numerous biological parameters in the Big Bend area. Testing and Modeling Pilot Plant Although DEP's rules do not require the use of a pilot plant to demonstrate reasonable assurances, TBD installed a desalination pilot plant at the Big Bend site in November 1999. The pilot plant matched the hydraulics and configuration of the full-scale facility on a 1/1000 scale. The pilot plant used water from the Big Bend power plant discharge as its source water. The purpose of the pilot plant was to confirm design requirements for the desalination facility and to provide samples of intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water to use for chemical characterization and analysis. Using a pilot plant is superior to using data from engineering projections or data from a different desalination facility because the pilot plant provides data specific to the Big Bend site. Data from the pilot plant were used to establish various effluent and other limits in the permit. Chemical Characterization Intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water from the pilot plant were analyzed for over 350 parameters chosen by DEP to determine chemical characterizations and water quality. The pilot plant operation provides extensive chemical characterization of intake and discharge water composition and mass loading. This information was key in providing accurate information on the chemical composition and mass loading of the desalination discharge concentrate. With this accurate information on the components in the discharge water, DEP was provided more than sufficient reasonable assurance on the potential effect of the chemical components of the discharge. TBD tested the pilot plant discharge water for copper, nickel, other heavy metals, and those chemical constituents specified on the DEP chemical characterization form. The chemical characterization tested for concentrations of constituents based on a 12.8 to 1 dilution ratio, and even at that dilution ratio, did not exceed any of the state water quality parameters. However, to provide additional assurance that there will not be an exceedance of state water quality standards, the permit requires a minimum 20 to 1 dilution ratio. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Testing Temperature and salinity affect the saturation point of dissolved oxygen ("DO") which is lowest when temperature and salinity are highest. DO saturation charts, which are typically used to determine DO saturation points, are not applicable because those charts do not contain the saturation point of DO at a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and a salinity of 79 ppt, which represents the worst case conditions for the proposed desalination facility. Bench-scale testing was performed on the undiluted desalination discharge from the pilot plant by heating discharge concentrate samples to 109 degrees Fahrenheit and aerating the samples until the DO stabilized and reached saturation point. The pilot plant bench-scale testing determined that the saturation point of DO in the worst case desalination concentrate using a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and salinity of 79 ppt was 5.7 mg/l. Toxicity Testing TBD conducted acute toxicity testing using a worst case scenario assuming a diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. Acute toxicity testing evidenced no mortalities, showing that the proposed discharge will not be a source of acute toxicity. TBD conducted chronic toxicity testing on raw concentrate from the pilot plant using a worst case scenario diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. The No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) for raw concentrate was determined to be 100 percent and the NOEC for diluted effluent was determined to be greater than 100 percent. The evidence did not explain these concepts, but it was clear from the tests that the proposed discharge will not be a source of chronic toxicity. TBD conducted its acute and chronic toxicity testing using protocols reviewed and approved by DEP. TBD's toxicity testing was also consistent with accepted EPA standards. Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts TBD prepared an Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts and Appendices ("Assessment") to analyze the potential biological impacts of the desalination plant discharge into the Tampa Bay estuary. The Assessment examined numerous physical parameters to determine the baseline environmental conditions in the portion of Tampa Bay proximate to the proposed desalination plant site. Among the physical parameters examined in determining the baseline environmental conditions were: salinity; sediment size and composition; metal content in sediments; and numerous water quality parameters such as transparency, biochemical oxygen demand, pesticides, dissolved metals, and pH. Consistency with SWIM Plan As part of the permitting process, TBD was required to demonstrate consistency of the proposed desalination discharge with the SWFWMD's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted an extensive SWIM consistency analysis, which is sufficient to meet the consistency requirement. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation Level II Study TBD performed a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) Level II study pursuant to Rule Chapter 62- 650 for the purpose of determining the effect of the desalination plant discharge on salinity levels in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. TBD had the Danish Hydrologic Institute ("DHI") use the data collected through the WQBEL Level II study in its near-field model of the Big Bend area. See Findings 105-117, infra. DEP also used the data and the DHI model results to establish the salinity and chloride effluent limitations in the permit. The USF Far-Field Model The far-field model was prepared utilizing the Princeton model code. The Princeton model is well recognized and is generally accepted in the scientific community. The goals of the TBD far-field model performed through USF by Dr. Luther and his team were to evaluate the change in bay-wide salinity due to the desalination plant discharge, both alone and in combination with changes in salinity due to enhanced surface water system withdrawals under new consumptive water use permits issued to TBW by SWFWMD to provide other, additional sources of needed potable water supply. The primary goal was to provide DEP with the best science possible of the potential real effects of this desalination discharge into Tampa Bay. The modeling system of Tampa Bay utilized in this analysis was developed beginning in 1989. Dr. Luther and his team have continued to make refinements to the model over the last 12 years. Dr. Luther took the modeling system he had developed over the years for Tampa Bay and did three primary model scenarios. The baseline case reproduced the observed conditions during the 1990 and 1991 years--a very dry period in 1990 and a fairly wet period for 1991--as accurately as possible with all the boundary conditions estimated from observations. This was to capture an entire range of conditions in Tampa Bay. The baseline was then compared with validation data and other observations to ensure it was approximating reality. The second simulated scenario included the same effects as the baseline with the added effect of the desalination intake and discharge at the Big Bend facility. The third case approximated cumulative effects from the TBW enhanced surface water system river withdrawals according to the proposed permit withdrawal schedules. For each test case, it was assumed that only two of the four cooling units at the TEC Big Bend plant were in operation for an entire two-year period, a worst-case scenario expected to occur less than four percent of the time in any given year. The model included data on water levels, temperature, and salinity throughout Tampa Bay. In addition, it takes into account wind blowing across the surface of Tampa Bay, rainfall, freshwater inflow from rivers, and other surface water and groundwater sources. The model was calibrated and validated against actual data to verify simulation of reality as closely as possible. The model was calibrated and validated utilizing Hillsborough County EPC and Tampa Oceanographic Project ("TOP") salinity data. Physical Oceanographic Real Time System ("PORTS") and TOP data on current flow velocity and water levels were utilized to calibrate and validate water levels and current. The acoustic doppler current profilers used in the model study are able to measure the speed at which the water is traveling and the direction at various levels above the bottom within the water column. The TBD far-field model very accurately reproduces the observed tidal residual velocities observed with the acoustic doppler current profilers. The far-field model reflects any stratification that would occur during the model simulations. The far-field model simulates recirculation that occurs between the discharge and intake water. Recirculation is small due to the model's use of the actual bathymetry of Tampa Bay. There are significant shoals and other features that separate the water from the discharge and the intake canal that preclude significant recirculation most of the time. After submitting the far-field model report to DEP, further study was performed on the far-field model that calculated residence time for Tampa Bay. One study dealt with "residence" or "flushing" time. The concept of "residence time" is not well-defined; put another way, there are many different accepted ways of defining it. It may be defined in a simplified manner as the time it takes a patch of dye to flush out of the bay. However, for purposes of the studies performed on the far-field model, theoretical "particles" in model grids were tracked, and "residence time" was defined as the time it would take for the number of particles initially in a grid cell to decrease to 34 percent of the initial number. Using this approach and definition, residence time in the vicinity of the Big Bend facility on the south side where the discharge canal is located was less than 30 days. Immediately offshore of the area of the discharge, the residence time reduced to less than 15 days. The study indicated that the area of the Big Bend facility has a relatively low residence time. In the model's baseline run (for the desalination plant impacts only), maximum differences in salinity occurred during the month of April 1991. Throughout the two-year time period, the maximum concentration of salinities did not increase from this point, and in fact decreased. The maximum average value for salinity difference is 1.3 ppt at the grid cell located directly at the mouth of the TEC Big Bend discharge canal. More than two grid boxes away in any direction and the value falls to less than 0.5 ppt increase in salinity. The maximum salinity of any given day for the far- field model was in the range of 2.1 to 2.2 ppt, which compares favorably with the DHI near-field model which showed an increase of 2.5 ppt. The salinity changes caused by the cumulative effects scenario are smaller than the natural variability during the wetter months in Hillsborough Bay in cells immediately adjacent to the concentrate discharge. Increases in salinity will occur in the vicinity of the discharge canal but will be very localized and small relative to the natural variability in salinity observed in Tampa Bay. At a distance of more than a few hundred meters from the mouth of the discharge canal, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to determine statistically that there would be any increase in salinity from the desalination concentrate discharge. Over the two years modeled, there is no trend of increasing salinity. No long-term accumulation of salt is evidenced within the model. Further, no physical mechanism exists within the real world that would allow for such a long- term accumulation of salinity in Tampa Bay. Dr. Blumberg's independent work verified the conclusions in the far-field model constructed by USF. Dr. Blumberg's estimated flushing times are consistent with those found in the far-field model. DHI Near-Field Model The TBD near-field model was prepared by DHI. DHI prepared a three-dimensional near-field model to describe the potential salinity impacts from the discharge of the proposed desalination plant. The DHI model is a state-of-the-art model whose physics are well documented. By model standards, the DHI near-field model is a high resolution model. The DHI model essentially "nests" within TBD's far-field model. The near-field area includes those areas that would be directly influenced by the combined power and desalination discharges, the North Apollo Embayment and the residential canal system adjacent to the discharge canal. The near-field model was designed to determine whether or not the desalination plant would cause continuous increases in salinity and to predict any increase in salinity in the North Apollo Embayment and the associated canal system. In addition, DHI evaluated the potential for saline recirculation between the discharge and the intake via short circuiting due to overtopping of the existing break water. In order to construct the near-field model, existing data on bathymetry, wind sources, meteorology and other parameters were examined and analyzed. In addition, the information from an intensive data collection effort by Mote Marine Laboratories on current velocities, temperatures, and salinities was incorporated into the model. TBD conducted bathymetric surveys in the residential canal areas, the North Apollo Embayment, and the area between the discharge canal and the intake canal. The model has a vertical structure of six grids and reflects vertical stratification that would occur in the system being modeled. The vertical grids in the model can detect a thermal plume one meter in depth (the size of the thermal plume from TEC's discharge). Information about the TEC thermal plume was incorporated into the model and utilized to calibrate the model's predictive capabilities. The model took into account interactions between the temperature plume and the salinity plume. The model predictions matched the measured temperature plume created by the TEC discharges quite well. The near-field model conservatively assumed a scenario in which only the two TEC units with the smallest total through-flow of 691.2 million gallons a day cooling water were active. DHI then assumed production of a maximum 29 mgd in product water. A salinity level of 32.3 ppt at the intake was utilized in the simulation. The model assumed a conservative wind condition which results in less mixing and dispersion of the plume. Further, wind direction tended to be from the southwest or west during the simulation, which tends to push the plume against the TEC break water which tends to reinforce recirculation. SOBAC witness Dr. Parsons agreed that these simulations for April and May 2000 constituted extreme conditions. DHI ran its model for a total time period of six weeks. The "warm up" for the simulation took place from April 15 to May 7, followed by the "calibration" simulation from May 8 to May 22. An additional validation sequence was run from May 25 to June 8. The production run was defined as the three weeks from May 8 to May 29, 2000. The intensity of the calculations performed in the near-field model due to its high spacial resolution and numeric restrictions make it computationally demanding. The calibration runs took approximately a week to 10 days to run on a state-of-the-art computer. From a computational standpoint, it is not practical to run the near-field model for a two-year time period. The model shows good agreement between its water levels and current velocity to observed data. The model reflects the recirculation of the discharge water that would occur in the system. The maximum salinity for the extreme case scenario in the near-field model is an increase in salinity of 2.5 ppt. With three condensers running, under the modeling scenario comparing the base condition to the desal discharge, there is a maximum difference of only 2.0 ppt. Further, there is no indication of any continuous build up of salinity in the near- field area due to the desalination plant discharge. DHI performed many sensitivity runs on the model, including one which examined rainfall conditions. The results of a two-inch rainfall analysis show that rainfall profoundly freshens the water in the near-field area. Since the modeling was done in a time period of extreme drought, with no freshwater inputs, the ambient or background salinity trended up over the time frame of May through June. As with any estuary, if freshwater inflow is removed, the estuary will get saltier until freshening occurs. Even with the model simulation period extended an additional 10 days beyond that reflected in TBD Ex. 1-O, the model results did not show any increase of salinity differences caused by the desal facility above 2.5 ppt. Based on data from field collections, the operation of the desal plant under worst case conditions did not exceed the assimilative capacity of the near-field environment. A 10 percent salinity change (3.23 ppt) was not reached in any grid cell. The Blumberg Study The "Environmental Impact Assessment for a Seawater Desalination Facility Proposed for Co-Location with the Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Generation Facility Located on Tampa Bay, Florida" authored by Norman Blake and Alan F. Blumberg ("Blumberg Study") is a hydrodynamic model study combined with an analysis of potential biological effects. The Blumberg Study was performed at the request of and presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida. Dr. Blumberg's model used 1998 and 1999 as its baseline, which consisted of an extremely wet year followed by an extremely dry year. The model assumed a scenario of two cooling units in operation pumping 656 mgd of discharge flow. The results of the Blumberg Study are very similar to the results of TBD's far-field model. In addition, the model ran for a 9-year period without any sign of ongoing build-up of salinity. After the two-year model run, the second year ran for an additional 7 simulated years for total model simulation period of 9 years. The Blumberg Study found salinity only increased by 1.4 ppt in the North Apollo Beach Embayment. In fact, the Blumberg Study showed no salinity build-up after the second year of the 7-year portion of the model simulation. The Blumberg Study found that the flushing time for the area near the Big Bend facility ranges from 4 to 10 days. The Blumberg Study applied a formula to predict potential DO saturation level changes. The analysis concluded a small change to DO saturation assuming full saturation on average of 7 mg/l. The Blumberg Study predicted that the desalination discharge would not lower actual DO levels below 5 mg/l. The Blumberg Study concluded that the marine ecology will not be affected by the desalination facility operation. Older Two-Dimensional Models of Tampa Bay Significant strides have been made in hydrodynamic modeling over the last 10 years, with the standard changing from two-dimensional models to three-dimensional models. Three-dimensional models provide more complete results than two-dimensional models. In the late 1970's through the late 1980's, modeling was constrained by the computing limitations of the time and could not examine the difference in water layers in a bay and potentials for currents going in different directions or speeds in different layers of the bay, as now done by state-of-the-art three-dimensional models. A two-dimensional model cannot accurately represent the tidal residual circulation in an estuary such as Tampa Bay, because it omits some of the critical physical forces that drive this type of flow. As the acoustic doppler current profiler showed, water flows in the top of the water column in one direction and flows in the bottom of the water column in a different direction. A two-dimensional model would average these flows over the entire vertical water column. In doing so, it would show much slower residual flow (and, therefore, longer residence time and a longer time to flush the system). SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Carl Goodwin, a civil engineer with the USGS. Dr. Goodwin provided testimony on two-dimensional model studies he did for the USGS in the late 1980's to assess the effects of dredging the shipping channel in Tampa Bay. Dr. Goodwin's studies, contained in SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70, suggested the existence of "gyres" in Tampa Bay. But no "gyres" have been observed, and it now appears that these gyres actually do not exist but are two- dimensional modeling artifacts, as shown by state-of-the-art three-dimensional modeling of Tampa Bay. In an earlier version of Dr. Luther's Tampa Bay model, an experiment was performed running the model in a vertically average mode to mimic the two-dimensional model. In this mode, the model was able to reproduce the "gyres" that Dr. Goodwin observed in his two- dimensional model. When the physical equations that related to pressure forces (baroclines) were reactivated in the three- dimensional model, the "gyres" disappeared. In addition, this experiment showed that the two- dimensional model simulation showed residence times an order of magnitude longer as compared to the full three-dimensional simulation. This means that residence time would be 10 times longer in the two-dimensional model than in the three- dimensional model, which takes into account baroclinic forces. Subsequent to the publication of his modeling studies (SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70), Dr. Goodwin found that it would take approximately 110 days for water to travel from the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay in 1985. This calculation by Dr. Goodwin was not subjected to peer review or the USGS process. However, dividing the 110-day time period with correction factor of 10 discussed above, Dr. Goodwin's corrected estimate would predict an 11-day period for transport of water from Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay--similar to the Blumberg Study and far-field model results. Opinions of Other SOBAC Experts Besides Dr. Goodwin, SOBAC also elicited some general opinions regarding the combined thermal and salinity plume from Dr. Mike Champ, called as an expert in the areas of environmental biology and chemistry, and from Dr. Wayne Isphording, called as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. In part, Dr. Champ based his opinion on a misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well- circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. In this respect, Dr. Champ's testimony was contrary to all the evidence. Even the "gyres" suggested by Dr. Goodwin's two- dimensional model studies would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. To the extent that the opinions of Dr. Champ and Dr. Isphording differed from the modeling results, they are rejected as being far less persuasive than the expert opinions of the modelers called by TBD, who spent far more time and effort studying the issue. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard Oxygen is a gas which can dissolve in water to some degree. There are two measurements of DO in water: saturation point and actual level. The saturation point of DO in water equates to the maximum amount of DO that water will hold. The actual level of DO is a measurement of the oxygen in the water. Since the saturation point is the maximum amount of DO that water will hold in equilibrium, the actual level of DO in water is typically equal to or lower than the saturation point. Desalination will affect the saturation point of DO to the extent that it increases salinity. Increased salinity decreases the saturation point of DO because it lowers the potential for water to hold oxygen. But desalination would not affect the actual level of DO in the water if the saturation point remains above the actual level of DO in the water. TBD determined that in the worst case scenario using undiluted desalination discharge, the lowest possible saturation point of DO would be 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is above 5.7 mg/l, desalination may lower that actual level of DO to 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, desalination will not lower the DO. Since TBD will aerate the water in the pretreatment process, if the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, the actual level of DO in the discharge water will be increased. The permit DEP proposes to issue to TBD requires that DO at the point of discharge from the RO plant meet the following: that instantaneous DO readings not depress the intake DO when intake DO is at or below 4.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 4.0 mg/l when intake DO is greater than 4.0 mg/l; that 24-hour average readings not depress the 24-hour average intake DO when the 24-hour average intake DO is at or below 5.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/l when the 24-hour average intake DO is greater than 5.0 mg/l. The evidentiary basis for SOBAC's argument that the proposed permit's DO limitation allowed violations of state water quality standards was the testimony of Dr. Champ. But it was evident from his testimony that Dr. Champ was not even aware of the effluent limitations until they were pointed out to him at final hearing. Nonetheless, and although Dr. Champ barely had time to read the DO limitations, Dr. Champ immediately opined that the proposed DO limitations virtually invited water quality violations. He dismissed the permit language out-of-hand as being "loosey-goosey," "fuzzy-wuzzy," and "weasel-like." Actually, there is no conflict between the proposed permit's DO limitations and the water quality standards and water quality criteria in DEP's rules. Other witnesses, particularly Tim Parker of DEP, properly compared the language in the permit with DEP's rules containing water quality standards and water quality criteria. Mr. Parker pointed out that the rules must be read in harmony with each other. Rule 62-302.530(31) contains DO water quality criteria and requires that the "actual DO shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24 hour period and shall never be less than 4.0." Rule 62-302.300(15), a water quality standard, states: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having a water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. Mr. Parker testified that the "natural conditions" referred to in Rule 62-302.300(15) are those found in the intake water to the desalination facility. TBD will not violate either the water quality criteria or the water quality standard for DO. If the actual level of DO in the intake water is less than 5.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water below 5.0 mg/l because the actual level of DO is below the worst case saturation point of 5.7 mg/l. The water quality standard in Rule 62-302.300(15) does not prohibit discharges having DO levels below 4.0 mg/l when that discharge does not cause or contribute to existing DO violations. TBD will not cause or contribute to existing DO violations because if the level of DO in the intake water which is the natural condition is less than 4.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water. To the contrary, the desalination process will increase the actual level of DO whenever it is below 5.0 mg/l. TBD has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15) because the desalination process will not decrease the actual level of DO below 5.0 mg/l. SOBAC argued that DO levels will drop between intake and discharge as a result of desalination. Some of this argument was based on the testimony of Dr. Mike Champ, one of SOBAC's expert witnesses. But Dr. Champ's testimony on this point (and several others) is rejected as being far less persuasive than the testimony of the expert witnesses for TBD and the other parties. See Finding 196, infra. SOBAC's argument apparently also was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the results of the Blumberg Study, which SOBAC cited as additional support for its argument that desalination will decrease DO at the discharge point. The Blumberg Study only spoke to desalination's effect on DO saturation concentrations, not to its effect on actual DO levels. (In addition, contrary to SOBAC's assertions, the Blumberg Study did not model DO saturation concentrations but only inferred them.) pH The pilot plant measured and analyzed the potential for pH changes in the desalination process and demonstrated that the desalination process reduced pH by no more than a tenth of a pH unit. pH ranges in natural seawater from top to bottom change over one full pH unit; a tenth of a pH unit change would be well within the natural variation of the system. TBD has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate Rule 62- 302.530(52)(c), which requires that pH shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters, provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5 units or raised above 8.5 units. Limitations for pH in the permit ensure compliance with Rule 62-302.530(52)(c) at the point of discharge to waters of the state. Temperature Nothing in the desalination process adds heat to the discharged water. To the contrary, the desalination process may dissipate heat due to the interface of the intake water with the air surface in the pretreatment process. Further, the effect of removing 25 mgd of heated cooling water as desal product water reduces the heat load coming out of the TEC plant cooling water discharge by that same 25 mgd. Temperature readings taken as part of the pilot plant study confirm a slight decrease in temperature across the desalination process. Metals The pretreatment process employed by TBD will result in a reduction in metals in the treated water. Ferric sulfate is added to the intake water upstream of the sand filters in the pretreatment process to precipitate metals into solid material which can be captured by the sand filters. Adding ferric sulfate in the pretreatment process results in a net reduction in the total mass load of metals in the discharge water. Initial calculations in the permit application that 104 pounds of ferric sulfate were being discharged in the desalination concentrate were based on using 20 mg/l of ferric sulfate and a conservative estimate of 95 percent settling of solids, with 5 percent of the ferric sulfate being discharged in the desalination concentrate. Further testing through the pilot plant revealed that coagulation optimizes at 9 to 14 mg/l of ferric sulfate with 97.5 percent of the solids settling, resulting in only 2.5 percent (52 pounds) of the ferric sulfate being discharged per day. The desal facility discharge of iron is minute in comparison to naturally occurring metals within the surface water flowing into Tampa Bay from the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Increases in iron due to ferric sulfate addition are predicted to result in a diluted discharge in which the iron level is still below Class III marine surface water limitation of 0.30 mg/l. Even SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording confirmed that there are no concerns caused by metals that TBD is adding during the process. Discharge Effect on Metal Absorption/Desorption Dr. Isphording limited his concerns to the reaction of higher salinity, DO, and redox to the sediments already contained within the area beyond the discharge point. Dr. Isphording admits that he cannot quantify what the potential release of heavy metals would be due to these factors. Absorption of metals occurs when an organic or clay particle attracts to its surface a metal. Biota do not obtain metals if the metal is held in sand or silt size particles. Biota, be they plant or animal, in most cases obtain the metals they receive from tiny particles that are suspended in the water called microparticulate material. Microparticulate material is generally referred to as colloidal phase. Typically, this phase is on the order of a tenth of a micron in size. Biota obtain metals only if they are present at clay- size particles. Only 10 percent of the quantity of metals that are theoretically available to the biota in a given environment is actually absorbed in tissues. Salinity Has Little Effect on Metals Salinity does not exert a controlling influence on absorption/desorption reactions except at very low salinities. If the salinity is zero, which is essentially a pure freshwater environment, and the salinity level then rises 3 ppt, there would be profound changes in the metal loads, for example, where rivers meet estuaries or seawater. When salinity levels in the water are on the order of 25 ppt, small salinity perturbations such as 2.5 ppt will have a very small effect on absorption/desorption reactions. In fact, the influence can be either positive or negative, but in general they are going to be quite small. Potential releases or gains of metal from salinity changes of 2.5 ppt, at the area of the discharge canal, would be difficult to predict, and it is uncertain whether the change would be positive or negative. pH Will Have Virtually No Effect on Metals Although SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording knew of no change to pH caused by the desalination process, he testified to the alleged effect of lowered pH on the metal in the sediments and water column. Only large pH differences can have a significant influence on absorption or desorption of metals. Any effect on absorption from a decrease in pH on the order of a tenth of a pH unit will be hidden within the natural variations of the estuarine system. See Finding 140, supra. Effect of Lower Oxygen Levels on Metals Redox is basically an oxidation-reduction phenomenon. In order for the low levels of oxygen to have a reducing effect resulting in a release of metals from sediments, virtually all of the oxygen would have to be removed from the water. Basically, the environment would have to reach anoxic conditions. Even then, some metals such as copper would remain within the sediments. In an oxygen-buffered system, redox perturbations will not significantly or measurably mobilize metals. Sediments can be oxidizing in the upper part and then generally become more reducing at depth. The area near the desal discharge does not have organic-rich deep sediment. Proposed Discharge Effect on Bioavailability of Metals The proposed desalination plant's discharge will not increase the bioavailability on metals above that of natural variations and any changes would be hard to discern or measure. Nor will there be any appreciable accumulation of metals in sediments in the receiving water resulting from the proposed desalination discharge. DEP has not established any sediment quality standard and monitoring of sediments is not a NPDES requirement. The desalination plant does not result in violations of Class III marine surface water criteria and standards. No Synergistic Effects Caused by Discharge There are no synergistic effects from the proposed discharge wherein the combination of two elements such as temperature and salinity together would create a new effect. Instead, pH, redox, salinity, and temperature may have small, immeasurable effects that may offset each other. No Adverse Impacts to Biota Comprehensive species lists of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, aquatic flora (including seagrasses and mangrove species), and threatened or endangered species inhabiting the area were prepared based on extensive review of applicable scientific literature on Tampa Bay. The salinity tolerance ranges of these species were determined through extensive review of information on salinity ranges associated with species capture, laboratory studies, review of studies addressing species types and salinity tolerances in hypersaline estuaries, and species salinity tolerances determined for other desalination projects. When background salinity is above 10 ppt, changes in salinity of a few ppt have no effect on most organisms. Lower salinities are more detrimental than high salinities to most marine organisms, as long as the upper limit does not exceed a value of approximately 40 ppt salinity. Most planktonic species and life forms can tolerate salinities of up to 40 ppt. Mangrove and seagrass species living in the area can tolerate salinity levels as high as 60 ppt. Benthic macroinvertebrates in the area routinely experience, tolerate and survive in salinity levels ranging from approximately 6 ppt to over 39 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Fish species in the area routinely experience and tolerate salinity levels as high as 39 to 40 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Estuaries serve as fish nurseries because fish species lay their eggs in estuaries, and the larval and juvenile life stages live and mature in estuaries. Due to extreme range of conditions that naturally occur in estuaries, fish reproductive strategies have adapted to enable fish eggs and larval and juvenile life stages to tolerate the wide range of natural conditions, including ranges in salinity levels, that are endemic to estuaries. Egg, larval, and juvenile fish stages may be better able to tolerate extreme range of salinities than adults life stages. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level is within the range of tolerance and variability that seagrasses, mangrove species, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, fishes, manatees, zooplanktonic and phytoplanktonic species, and other organisms and life forms living in Tampa Bay routinely encounter and tolerate in the natural environment. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity with the maximum permitted salinity discharge limit of 35.8 ppt of salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level will not adversely affect the survival or propagation of seagrasses, mangroves, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish, fish eggs, or juvenile life stages of fish species, or other organisms or life forms in Tampa Bay, and specifically the portion of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. The Shannon-Weiner Index, which is a biological integrity index codified at Rule 62-302.530(11), requires that the index for benthic macroinvertebrates not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels. Since there will be no adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates due to the desalination discharge and since the level of salinity increases anticipated will tend to benefit benthic macroinvertebrates population, TBD has met the criterion in Rule 62-302.530(11). The Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that Tampa Bay experienced a 2.0 ppt change in salinity over the course of one month. No fish kill or observable die-offs of species were observed or reported from this natural occurrence of elevated salinity. The desalination discharge will (1) not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats, (2) not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge, (3) not violate any Class III marine water quality standards, and (4) maintain water quality for the propagation or wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life. The desalination discharge meets the antidegradation standards and policy set forth in Rules 62-4.242 and 62- 302.300. Discharge Disposal Options Analyzed As part of the permitting process, TBD demonstrated that the use of land application of the discharge, other discharge locations, or reuse of the discharge was not economically and technologically reasonable, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted a sufficient analysis of these options as part of its Antidegradation Analysis. (TBD Ex. 1G; TBD Ex. 200, Fact Sheet, p. 16). Further Protection in the Permit The permit review of the desalination permit application is one of the most thorough ever conducted by DEP. The proposed permit has conditions which create and provide a wide margin of environmental protection. The permit sets effluent limitations of various constituents which are reasonably expected to be in the desal facility discharge and provides for monitoring programs to ensure compliance with those effluent limitations. The monitoring requirements of the proposed permit exceed the monitoring requirement imposed on other facilities in the Tampa Bay area. Effluent Limitations DEP established effluent limitations using the Class III marine state water quality standards, data provided from the pilot plant regarding the chemical characterization, the modeling conducted by DHI and the University of South Florida, and the water quality data collection by Mote Marine Laboratory in connection with the establishment of the WQBEL. The effluent limitations contained in the permit are consistent with DEP rules. The proposed permit restricts TBD to the lesser of either the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake or the salinity limit of 35.8 ppt. There is no state water quality standard for salinity. The permit limit for chlorides complies with Rule 62- 302.530(18). The permit's additional requirement of a minimum dilution ratio has the effect of limiting chlorides to 7 percent above intake for 384 hours per year and 5 percent above intake for the remainder of the year and thus provides extraordinary assurance that the state water quality standard for chlorides will be met. Dr. Champ was SOBAC's primary witness in support of its argument that the proposed permit allows a discharge with excessive salinity. But it was apparent from his testimony that Dr. Champ misinterpreted the permit limitations for salinity. See Finding 196, infra. Dr. Champ conceded that the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake was appropriate but focused on the 35.8 ppt maximum, as if it overrode the chloride limitation. As found, the opposite is true. TBD will be limited to 10 percent above intake for chlorides even if the result is salinity far less than the daily maximum of 35.8 ppt. Dr. Champ also had concerns about comparing the discharge to intake chloride levels as not being representative of "normal background." He argued (as does SOBAC) for comparing discharge to chloride levels somewhere else in Middle Tampa Bay, nearby but far enough away to insure no influence from the discharge. But the modeling evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will not be a great deal of recirculation of discharge to intake and that the recirculation expected will not cause salinity to build-up continuously over time. The modeling evidence is accepted as far more persuasive than Dr. Champ's testimony. See Finding 196, infra. The only metals for which effluent limitations were established in the permit are copper, nickel, and iron because these were the only metals determined to be close to the state water quality standard levels by the pilot plant studies. The actual levels of such metals in the desalination discharge will be less than those in the pilot plant testing because the dilution ratio (12.8 to 1) used in the pilot testing is much higher than the minimum dilution ratio required by the permit (20 to 1). The permit effluent limitations for copper, nickel, and iron are based on, and comply with, DEP Rules 62- 302.500(2)(d) and 62-302.530(24), (39) and (45). The permit effluent limitations for Gross Alpha are based on and comply with the requirements in Rule 62- 302.530(58). Biological treatment of the desalination plant discharge concentrate is not required because it consists of seawater. Monitoring for Effluent Limitations DEP is able to separately determine TEC's compliance with its permit from TBD's compliance with the effluent limitations in the proposed desalination permit because of how the facility is designed and the monitoring is constructed. Monitoring requirements in the proposed permit were determined with reference to the probability of desal facility discharge exceeding specific water quality standards. DEP rules do not require monitoring for each and every constituent detected above background concentrations, only those which would probably exceed state water quality standards. The permit requires monitoring of effluent limitations at the intake to and discharge from the desalination facility and the calculation of the diluted effluent levels in the co-mingled discharge water. In order to calculate the effluent components in the diluted discharge water, continuous monitoring is performed on the TEC cooling water discharge rate of flow. Parameters of DO, conductivity, salinity, chlorides, copper, iron, nickel, radium, gross alpha, and effluent toxicity are measured at both intake and discharge pursuant to proposed permit. Monitoring of Intake Monitoring of the intake will be located, after interception off TEC Units 3 and 4, prior to entering the desalination plant. Using a sampling location of the intake to the desalination facility prior to filtering or chemical addition for background samples is consistent with the definition of "background" in DEP Rule 62-302.200(3). EPC Stations 11, 80, 81, 13, and 14 are not proper locations for background samples because salinity varies with tides and depth and those stations are too distant from the actual intake point. EPC station 9 is not a good location because it is closer to the discharge than the permit sample point. Monitoring of Discharge Monitoring of the discharge will take place in the wet well prior to discharge into TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels. This monitoring location is in compliance with Rule 62-620.620(2)(i) which provides for monitoring of effluent limitations in internal waste streams. Monitoring of the desal facility discharge concentrate in each of the four cooling water discharge tunnels is impractical due to the high volume of dilution and addition of four potential discharge locations. Once the desal facility concentrate is diluted by the TEC cooling water discharge, it is much more difficult to obtain accurate water quality testing for constituents at such minute levels. Monitoring of the Combined Discharge Concentrations Calculations determine the mixing ratios of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. Using the flow data from TEC, the calculations will accurately determine the water quality of the co-mingled discharge water. Compliance with Permit Effluent Limitations The proposed permit requires TBD to monitor constituents for which there are effluent limitations on either a daily, weekly or monthly basis, depending on the constituent. The frequency of monitoring for each constituent is based on comparing the expected levels of the constituent to the water quality standard and analyzing the probability of the desal facility discharge exceeding that standard. The monitoring provides additional assurances beyond the pilot plant studies, testing and modeling that no water quality standard will be violated. Continuous monitoring is not necessary to successfully monitor discharges. Monthly measurements are sufficient to determine compliance even for a daily permit level because the chemical characterization studies provide reasonable assurances that the desalination concentrate will not exceed the effluent limitations. Monthly monitoring provides further checks and balances to assure that the desalination discharge is in conformance with the effluent limitations and DEP rules. The EPA only requires that monitoring occur at least once a year. Conductivity provides a direct correlation to salinity and chlorides. Measuring conductivity provides salinity and chloride levels by basis of calculations and is typically used as a surrogate for monitoring chloride and salinity continuously. Salinity and chloride cannot themselves be measured continuously because they are measured by lab tests. The permit requires conductivity to be monitored continuously, not because DEP believed the desalination discharge would be near the chloride limitation, but rather to be extremely conservative. The permit conditions treat an exceedance of salinity or chlorides based on conductivity readings to be a violation of the permit effluent limitations for salinity and chlorides. TBD provided reasonable assurance to DEP that the proposed desalination discharge would not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15). The permit condition requiring monitoring of DO provides verification that desal facility discharge will meet the DO water quality standards. Even SOBAC's witness Dr. Champ admitted that a continuous measurement for DO is not as valuable as random weekly samples. External Monitoring Programs The proposed permit requires TBD to develop and submit to DEP a Biological Monitoring Program to monitor seagrasses, benthic macroninvertebrates and fish populations to be consistent with existing Tampa Bay monitoring programs. This program will provide an effective means of monitoring the potential impacts of the desalination discharge. The proposed permit also requires TBD to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program for three monitoring stations located proximal to the intake, the discharge and the North Apollo Beach Embayment which will monitor conductivity, salinity, DO and temperature continuously. These monitoring programs will provide additional ambient data to DEP. If the data indicate an exceedance or reasonable potential for an exceedance of water quality standards, DEP may reopen the permit in accordance with the reopener clause contained in the permit. These monitoring programs go beyond the requirements in DEP rules. Additionally, DEP does independent monitoring of NPDES discharges without notice and on a purposely unpredictable basis. Proof of Financial Responsibility Rule 62-620.301(6) addresses when DEP may require a permit applicant to submit proof of financial responsibility to guarantee compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. TBD's compliance history was taken into consideration during the permitting process. Adequate financial assurance were provided in the permit application. (TBD Ex. 1I). Further, the permit conditions added by the settlement agreement (TBD Ex. 470) provide for additional financial assurance beyond those that can be required by the NPDES program and DEP rules. Additional Comment on SOBAC's Evidence As already indicated, SOBAC elicited the testimony of several expert witnesses at final hearing to support its contentions. But none of SOBAC's experts spent a great deal of time studying TBD's desal project, especially compared to witnesses for the other parties. Mostly, SOBAC experts expressed general scientific principles that were not directly tied to specifics of the desal project or were very general expressions of concern. Often, SOBAC's experts were not familiar with all the efforts of experts offered by the other parties to address those very concerns. Except for Dr. Champ, no SOBAC expert opined that the proposed permits would result in violations of DEP statutes and rules. Some SOBAC experts expressed opinions that only would be relevant if there were insufficient assurances in proposed permits that DEP statutes and rules would not be violated. Statistical evidence presented was not particularly relevant. Dr. Goodwin As previously mentioned, Dr. Carl Goodwin was willing to provide testimony on work he did for the USGS, but he gave no expert opinions on the permits which are the subject of these proceedings. As also previously discussed, his two- dimensional model studies were constrained by computational limitations. Even so, his studies indicated that flushing in Tampa Bay was becoming more rapid in recent years. In addition, even if the "gyres" suggested by his two-dimensional studies actually existed, they would tend to promote mixing in Tampa Bay in area of the Big Bend power plant. Dr. Champ Dr. Champ's first opinion was that 35.8 ppt is too high a salinity limit and would result in "oceanic" conditions. He attempted to compare this result to results of diversion of substantial amounts of freshwater inputs to the Black Sea for agricultural purposes--a totally different situation not suitable for comparison to Tampa Bay. Initially, Dr. Champ suggested a limitation of a 10 percent increase above "background" or "ambient" conditions; it was apparent that initially Dr. Champ was not cognizant of the 10 percent over intake chloride limitation in the proposed permit. When he was made aware of the chloride limit, he misinterpreted the two limits, saying that TBD would not be limited to the lower of the two. When it was suggested that he might have misinterpreted the two salinity limits, Dr. Champ testified that chlorides should be compared to a "natural" or "environmental" control site somewhere nearby but outside the influence of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; he said it was a "farce" to compare chlorides to a control site "inside the plant." In so doing, he seemed not to recognize the purpose of the comparison made in the proposed permit--to isolate and identify the impacts of TBD's desal process. In addition, dismissing without much consideration the contrary results of extensive and sophisticated modeling, Dr. Champ opined off- handedly that DO would decrease due to higher salinity that would recirculate and build-up over time. In part, Dr. Champ based this opinion on his misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well-circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. This was contrary to all the evidence; even if the "gyres" predicted by Dr. Goodwin's two-dimensional model existed, they would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. Dr. Champ next misinterpreted the DO limits in the proposed permit. See Finding 133, supra. Dr. Champ then predicted a decrease in species diversity as a result of higher salinity and lower DO. (To the contrary, salinity increases in the amounts predicted by the far greater weight of the evidence probably would result in somewhat of an increase in species diversity.) Ultimately, Dr. Champ testified that consequences to marine organisms would be dire, even if salinity increased only by 2.5 ppt, because a "salinity barrier" would form across Middle Tampa Bay in contrast to more gradual natural changes in salinity. The far greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. Dr. Champ made several suggestions to avoid the calamitous results he predicted: require use of a cooling tower to reduce the temperature of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; collect the desal brine concentrate and barge it to the Gulf of Mexico; require intake and discharge pipes extending into the shipping channel in Middle Tampa Bay. But Dr. Champ did not study or give a great deal of thought to implementation of these suggestions. Besides, the other parties proved that these measures were not needed for reasonable assurances. In an attempt to buttress his opinion testimony, Dr. Champ also testified (along with SOBAC's President, B.J. Lower) that the TEC intake canal is virtually devoid of life and that biodiversity in the discharge canal is very low. This testimony was conclusively refuted by the rebuttal testimony of Charles Courtney, who made a site visit after SOBAC's testimony and described in detail a significant number of healthy species in the intake canal, including oyster communities, xanthid crabs, porcellanid crabs, snook, anemones, bivalves, polychaete, and mangroves with seedlings. Of the one and one- half pounds of oysters that Mr. Courtney sampled, he estimated that approximately fifty percent of those oysters were living, which represents a very healthy community. Mr. Courtney further noted that some of the crabs were carrying eggs, which indicates an active life cycle for those species. As to the TEC permit modification, Dr. Champ testified that it was “in-house stuff” which would not affect the environment outside the TEC plant. No other SOBAC witness addressed the TEC permit modification. Dr. Isphording SOBAC called Dr. Wayne Isphording as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. Dr. Isphording expressed no concern that the desal process would add metals to Tampa Bay. Essentially, he gave opinion testimony concerning general principles of sedimentology and geochemistry. He testified that heavy metals bound in sediments are released naturally with increases in salinity, but that salinity levels would have to be extreme to result in the release of abnormal quantities of such metals. He admitted that he had performed no studies of sediments in Tampa Bay and declined to offer specific opinions that metals in fact would be released as a result of predicted salinity increases. Dr. Isphording admitted that he knew of no condition in the proposed Desal Facility permit which would cause or allow a violation of state water quality standards. He was aware of no statute or rule requiring more monitoring and testing than is required in the proposed permit. Dr. Parsons SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Arthur Rost Parsons, an assistant professor of oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School, in an attempt to raise questions regarding the near-field and far-field modeling which were provided by TBD to DEP during the course of the permitting process. However, not only had Dr. Parsons not done any modeling in Tampa Bay himself, he was not provided numerous reports and clarifications relating to the studies he was called to critique. He only reviewed an interim report dated November 1, 2000, regarding the near-field model. Dr. Parsons testified that the DHI model used for the near-field study was an excellent shallow water model. He found nothing scientifically wrong with it and testified that the "physics and the model itself is . . . well–documented." Dr. Parsons also did not contradict the results of the DHI model. Instead, he noted that the modeling task was difficult and complex, he described some of the model's limitations, and he testified to things that could have been done to increase his confidence in the model results. One of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to run the model longer. But the evidence was that, due to the model's complexity and high computational demands, it would have been extremely expensive to run the model for longer periods of time. Another of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to use salinity data would be to use the information that the model itself generated with regard to salinity distributions instead of a homogeneous set of salinity data. Dr. Parsons was concerned that use of homogeneous salinity data would not reflect the effect of "double diffusion" of heat and salinity, which would result in sinking of the combined heat. But engineer Andrew Driscoll testified in rebuttal that the effects of "double diffusion" would cease once equilibrium was reached and would not result in a hypersaline plum sinking to the bottom. In addition, he testified that turbulent mixing from tide and wind would dominate over the effect of "double diffusion" at the molecular level so as to thoroughly mix the water, especially in the shallow North Apollo Beach Embayment. Dr. Parsons also suggested that the model be run for rainy season conditions to see if the effects of vertical stratification would increase. But even if vertical stratification increased as a result of rain, salinity also would be expected to decrease. The scenario modeled was "worst case." Dr. Parsons also suggested the use of a range of temperatures for the combined heat/salinity plume instead of an average temperature. However, he conceded that it was not inappropriate to use average temperature. Instead, he would have liked to have seen the model run for a range of temperatures to see if the model was sensitive to temperature differences so as to increase his confidence in the results. Dr. Parson's testimony focused on the near-field model. His only comment on the far-field model was that he thought it should have used the out-puts from the near-field model (as the near-field used the outputs). Scott Herber SOBAC offered no direct testimony on the impact of the Desal Facility discharge on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. The testimony of Steve Herber, a doctoral student at the Florida Institute of Technology, related to the vulnerability of seagrasses, in general, to changes in salinity. However, Mr. Herber had no specific knowledge of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay and had not performed or reviewed any scientific studies upon which his opinion could be based. He reached no conclusions about the specific permits at issue in this proceeding, nor about the effect of the Desal Facility on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. In contrast to Mr. Herber, the testimony of TBD's expert, Robin Lewis, and SWFWMD's expert, Dr. David Tomasko, provided detailed information about the seagrasses located in Tampa Bay. Both have studied seagrasses in Tampa Bay for many years and have been involved in mapping seagrass distribution in a variety of bays and estuaries along the west coast of Florida. Dr. Tomasko criticized witnesses for SOBAC who attempted to draw conclusions about Tampa Bay based on studies of other bays and estuaries because each bay has unique characteristics that cannot be extrapolated from studies of other bays. Dr. Tomasko and Lewis testified that seagrasses in Tampa Bay are becoming more abundant, that dissolved oxygen levels are increasing, and that water clarity in Tampa Bay is also improving. Dr. Mishra Dr. Satya Mishra was called by SOBAC as an expert in statistics. He is not an expert in the discrete field of environmental statistics. He has never been involved in the development of a biological monitoring program and could not provide an opinion regarding what would be an adequate sample size for this permit. He essentially expressed the general opinions that for purposes of predictive statistical analysis: random sampling is preferred; statistical reliability increases with the number of samples; and 95 percent reliability is acceptable. Dr. Mishra performed no statistical analysis in this case and could not conclude that the sampling provided in the proposed permit would not be random. Ron Chandler Ron Chandler, a marketing representative for Yellow Springs Instrument Corporation (YSI), simply testified for SOBAC regarding the availability of certain types of continuous monitoring devices. He did not offer any opinions regarding whether or not reasonable assurance required continuous monitoring of any specific parameter or any monitoring different from or in addition to what is proposed in TBD's proposed permit. John Yoho SOBAC called John Yoho as a financial and insurance expert to criticize the terms of an agreement by TBD, TBW, and DEP to settle Hillsborough County's request for an administrative hearing (DOAH Case No. 01-1950). This agreement is contained in TBD Ex. 470. But Yoho admitted that he had no knowledge regarding what is required to obtain an NPDES permit in terms of financial assurances. He also indicated that none of his testimony should be understood as relating in any way to financial assurances required for such a permit to be issued. Alleged Improper Purpose The evidence did not prove that SOBAC participated in DOAH Case No. 01-2720 for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of TEC's permit modification applications. To the contrary, the evidence was that SOBAC participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues arising from the peculiarities of the relationship of TEC's permit modification application to TBD's permit application. Although SOBAC suffered adverse legal rulings that prevented it from pursuing many of the issues it sought to have adjudicated on TEC's permit modification application, it continued to pursue issues as to the TBD permit application which, if successful, could require action to be taken on property controlled by TEC and, arguably, could require further modification of TEC's permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: (1) issuing the proposed permit number FL0186813-001-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 203 with the addition of the two permit conditions specified in TBD Ex. 470; (2) issuing proposed permit modification number FL0000817-003-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 225; and (3) denying TEC's request for attorney's fees and costs from SOBAC under Section 120.595(1). Jurisdiction is reserved to enter an order on TBD's Motion for Sanctions filed on August 13, 2001, regarding SOBAC expert Ralph Huddleston. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 E. A. Seth Mills, Jr., Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Joseph D. Richards, Esquire Pasco County Attorney's Office 7530 Little Road, Suite 340 New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5598 Cathy M. Sellers, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1508 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alexis Crlenjak is the owner of an unimproved lot approximately 90 feet by 230 feet in size which abuts Black Creek in Clay County, Florida. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) By application received by the St. Johns River Subdistrict of the Department of Environmental Regulation on September 9, 1980, Petitioner sought a permit to place approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill dirt over an area of 90 by 130 feet to a depth of 3 feet on the southern portion of his lot. The stated purpose for the request was to enable Petitioner to obtain a county permit to install a septic tank and drainfield in the filled portion of the lot. Such a permit previously had been denied by the county for the reason that inadequate drainage for a septic tank existed in the lot's present natural condition. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) Subsequent to receipt of the application, DER's Subdistrict Office solicited comments or objections to the proposed project from adjacent landowners and various governmental agencies. An adjoining landowner, Frederick G. Flagge, filed an opposition to the concept of placement of a septic tank and drainfield next to his land due to the possibility of seepage and contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, expressed the view that placement of fill material in flood plain wetlands to raise the elevation for a septic tank placement is not in the public's interest and recommended denial of the application, and suggested that the applicant utilize the upland portion of his property for such purpose. The Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded that the work would adversely impact fishery resources by filling productive wetlands and made a similar recommendation to that of the EPA. A representative of the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the area in November 1980, and found that the proposed project would destroy 0.27 acres of wetlands which provide nesting, feed and shelter habitat for various species of birds, maimals and reptiles. The agency therefore recommended that any fill be limited to upland areas. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial because the project would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources by eliminating a protective wetland habitat. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's lot is bounded on the north by Black Creek, on the east by a dredged canal which terminates at a boat basin immediately south of his property. A filled driveway separates Petitioner' s land from the Flagge property to the west. Although the area surrounding the north bank of Black Creek is still in a natural condition, Petitioner's and Flagge's lots are practically the only ones on the south bank in that area which are undeveloped and still in a relatively natural state. The northern border of Petitioner's property is high and dry due to the berm along Black Creek which has been deposited over the years and has become vegetated. However, the southern half is a hardwood swamp area where blackgum is the dominant species, together with other species such as buttonbush, water ash, dahoon, willow, water locust, red maple and sweetgum. Black Creek is classified as a Class III body of water under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The type of vegetation on the southern portion of Petitioner's lot is associated with periodic inundation during seasonal rainfall, and is thus deemed to constitute the landward extent of waters of the state pursuant to the vegetative indices of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. After receiving the application an environmental specialist in Respondent's subdistrict office visited the site and thereafter prepared a Permit Application Appraisal. He identified the various species of plant life located in the area to be filled and determined that it was properly within Respondent's jurisdiction. His appraisal found that the swamp area in question benefits the water quality of Black Creek by filtering sediments and assimilating pollutants generated by upland runoff. He also found that the area is a fish and wildlife habitat, provides flood control, and serves as a primary food source for fish and wildlife. He therefore determined that the proposed project would result in the elimination of those biological resources that aid in maintaining water quality and would further degrade water quality by adding septic tank waste in close proximity to the waterway. He concluded that the project as proposed would induce flooding on the lot to the West by blocking the flow through the swamp which presently is connected by a culvert under the filled driveway to the west. His supervisor subsequently visited the site and agreed with the application appraisal. It was their combined opinion that filling of the land would eventually lead to eutrophication of the adjacent canal and adversely affect the water quality of Black Creek. At the time of their visits, the DER personnel did not observe standing water on Petitioner's property, but did so on the adjacent lot to the west. (Testimony of Rector, Tyler, Exhibit 2) As a result of the adverse application appraisal, Respondent advised Petitioner on December 9, 1980, of its intent to deny the application based on the loss of submerged land, and anticipated water quality degradation by replacing the aquatic ecosystem with a septic tank and drain ield which has a potential for leaking into the adjacent canal. The Notice of Intent to Deny further specified state water quality standards which would be adversely affected, and found that the applicant had not provided the department with affirmative reasonable assurances that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of state water quality standards. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) At the hearing, Petitioner scaled down his request by stating that he now only wished to fill an area approximately 25 feet by 40 feet in the southwest corner of his lot to serve as the drainfield for a septic tank. However, the DER personnel who had reviewed the project testified that their recommendation of denial would not be changed in spite of the reduced proposed filling activity. They were of the opinion that the same considerations which led to the denial recommendation would still be present, except on a smaller scale. They indicated that Petitioner could still use his land, in spite of the permit denial, for recreational activities, or by erecting a "stilt" house on the lower half of the lot. However, in such an eventuality, the septic tank and drainfield would have to be placed on the upland portion of the lot. As petitioner pointed out, this cannot take place under current health regulations in view of the fact that a well is located on the north side of the adjacent lot, and the spacing distance would be insufficient for state and county permitting purposes. Although Petitioner denied that a culvert existed under the driveway separating the lots, he conceded that he had not visited the property for about a year. (Testimony of Tyler, petitioner, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 12th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Victoria J. TSchinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Alexis Crlenjak Assistant General Counsel Route 2, Box 618 Department of Environmental Havana, Florida 32333 Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By various purchases during the period 1967-1969, Petitioner acquired over 14,000 acres of land in the eastern sector of central Florida. About 12,000 acres of the land lie in Volusia County and the remainder in the northern part of Brevard County. Petitioner registered various public offering statements for resale of this land with the Florida Land Sales Board. In 1967, pursuant to an act of the State Legislature, the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida entered judgment creating and incorporating the South County Drainage District which included Petitioner's land in Volusia County. Later attempts by judicial action to extend the Drainage District boundary lines to include Petitioner's land in Brevard County were unsuccessful. A 1967 agreement between Petitioner and the Drainage District provided that a drainage plan would be implemented by the District with funds for construction being advanced by Petitioner. This plan consisted of dead-end graded roads and a system of ditches and canals that were to be constructed and maintained by the Drainage District, with purchasers of the property to be assessed for the cost of the facilities. In 1972, Volusia County adopted a home rule charter which abolished the South County Drainage District and transferred its powers and functions to the county. In 1973, an agreement was entered into between Petitioner and Volusia County providing for the transfer to the county of the functions, responsibilities, and obligations of the Drainage District, and assigning to Petitioner the right to petition the State for approval of the drainage plan. Under the agreement, a Special Improvement District was created by the County (testimony of Trella, Maise1, Exhibits 1, 2, 25, 26, 27). The land acquired by Petitioner had been designated as Cape Atlantic Estates and was divided into tracts or lots in a grid system which was a series of rectangular squares with intersecting roads. Initially, the tracts were two and 1/2 acres each and eventually they were halved and sold in one and 1/4 acre plots. A typical offering statement provided that the "predeveloped tracts" were subject to road and drainage rights-of- way, and that purchasers, after paying their contracts in full, would receive free and clear title to the property. It was further stated that physical access would be obtained over rough graded dirt roads to be completed by December 31, 1973, and that when drainage facilities were completed the land would be dry. It was specifically pointed out that it was not a "homesite" offering nor was it part of a recorded plat, but offered as part of a section, township and range. However, the statement also noted that facilities such as elementary schools, churches, and fire, and police protection were available in neighboring communities. It also indicated that there was no water supply, sewage, public utilities, or public transportation to the property. Sales commenced in 1967 and, by the middle of 1971, approximately 98 percent of the tracts had been sold, primarily to out-of-state purchasers. The bulk of the sales were made by telephone contacts initiated by Petitioner's salesmen. Some 5,000 purchasers bought tracts in the development on contracts which were of eleven to twelve years in duration. The property in question is described as coastal low lands that consist of essentially level terraces. The surface drainage of the land is poorly-developed and inefficient. The terraces begin at the Atlantic Ocean on the east and progress westward to a maximum altitude of about 29 feet in the project area. The Atlantic coastal ridge functions as a divide between the St. Johns river and the coastal drainage basin called Turnbull Hammock. West of the ridge, surface drainage generally is toward the St. Johns river, and east of the ridge drainage is into Turnbull, Hammock which leads to Turnbull Creek and thence to the Indian River. The region has large swamp and marshland areas and sandy surface soils which are intermittently underlain by hardpan at shallow depths which impedes rainfall infiltration. Much of the area is covered with ponds during the wet season creating swampy conditions. The climate supports heavy growth of native pine and scrub oak trees in the sandy soils. Cypress trees prevail in the wet bottomlands. Turnbull Hammock occupies the eastern quarter of the tract and is flat and heavily-wooded. It serves as a catchment for surface runoff from the lands immediately to the west and also for lands outside and north of the project. The Turnbull Hammock natural drainage basin involves about 48 square miles. Highway 1- 95 - traverses the center of the area in a north-south direction. The land is in a primitive state and is mostly unused with the exception of minor cattle grazing areas. Subsurface water leaving the Cape Atlantic Estates to the east surfaces in the Turnbull Hammock and drains to the south into the Indian River. On the west side, the tendency of the water is to move west and surface in cypress sloughs, eventually reaching Buck Lake, an area to the southwest. During flood conditions, when surface waters are high, the western subsurface water could make its way in time to the St. Johns River. The original drainage plan was aimed at decreasing the retention of surface water and using controlled measures to improve runoff in order to prevent flooding and soil erosion. Some nine percent of the property has standing water or ponding and, although in many of the sand ridges, this is not a serious problem because the rainfall quickly dissipates into the soil, in those areas were the soil is heavily interspersed with hardpan, there is slow percolation. Some 26 percent of the land area floods during rain showers. The plan was to remove the standing surface water by a network of canals, ditches and swales and, to achieve these goals, regulating devices were to be installed at two major discharge points of the system. The plan incorporated a main canal located just west of 1-95 which would drain the western Volusia County portion of the project area through an existing 9' X 12' double box culvert under 1-95 into a north outfall canal and ultimately into Turnbull Hammock. The remaining portion of the western section, some 2300 acres in Brevard County, was planned to be drained to the south whereby water would exit the property through a 142 acre storage reservoir that was considered to have sufficient capacity to retain the water during a 50 year flood condition and yet not exceed the existing natural discharge rate. Since Turnbull Hammock is considerably lower than the western side of the property, a self regulating control gate was considered necessary to maintain the water level of the canal in Volusia County at a level of 21 feet mean sea level. In the Brevard County portion, the main canal water level was designed to be kept at an elevation of 20 feet mean sea level by a fixed control structure at the reservoir discharge. It was planned that water would be collected from the area by lateral swales and ditches which would flow into the main canal (testimony of Trelia, Garcia; Exhibits 2,3,4 & 15). The main canal for the project was constructed in 1970. This canal generally parallels the west side of 1-95 in the project area and is approximately 14 1/2 miles in length, some 90 to 100 feet wide and five to six feet in depth. It had been estimated that all the improvements for the project would be completed by December 31, 1973. In early 1971, the Drainage District was in the design stages for the next phase when it learned that Volusia County had adopted the home rule charter that abolished, the South County Drainage District. At this point, work on the project stopped and nothing further was done toward completion of the improvements to the land. In the middle of 1972, after negotiations with Volusia County, Petitioner became aware that various state agencies, same of which had come into being since the original purchase of the land, might have some responsibility in connection with the project. The Department of Pollution control, Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund were contacted to see if they had any requirements as to the proposed improvements. The Department of Pollution control was the only agency which expressed an interest or concern in the matter. Petitioner also ceased sales in the middle of ;1972 after discussions with the Florida Land Sales Division, because of the uncertainty of the situation at that time. During the remainder of 1972, Petitioner's representatives had various discussions with officials of the Department of Pollution Control at Tallahassee, but was advised that nothing definitive could be accomplished on the drainage plan pending a resolution of the status of the South County Drainage District which was in litigation at the time. Around October, 1972, as a result of discussions with various county officials and the Department of Pollution Control, Petitioner decided that an environmental impact study would be, beneficial and therefore retained the services of Brevard Engineering Company of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to make such an environmental assessment of Cape Atlantic Estates. This report was completed in February, 1973, and transmitted to the Department of Pollution Control in April. Although there were numerous conversations with Tallahassee representatives of the Department of Pollution Control during the remainder of the year, it was not until early 1974 that petitioner was advised it should start discussing the matter with the Department's central regional office in Orlando. A meeting was held at Orlando between Petitioner's representatives and officials of the regional office in March, 1974 at which time the details of the project were reviewed. Mr. Woods, the regional engineer for the Orlando office at that time, indicated that he wished to study the matter further because he was not familiar with the environmental study which had been received from their Tallahassee office. There followed a field trip to the project area where Mr. Garcia, the project engineer,, and two members of the Orlando regional office of the Department, Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Medley, looked over the area. In April, 1974, there was another meeting with Mr. Woods at which time he indicated that the project would be approached by the Department as a potential pollution source at any points where the waters went outside the property boundaries. This was followed up by a letter from Mr. Woods received by Petitioner in June, 1974, which stated that in view of the primary interest of his office to protect and preserve water quality as to the project, it was recommended that strong consideration be given to modifying the drainage plan to allow for reduction in the following areas: Draining of swamps, marshes, and wet lands which is in general detrimental to water quality by the removal of natural filtration and assimilative systems from the service of treatment of stormwater runoff. Introduction of canals and artificial waterways degrade water quality by virtue of their stagnating effect and general magnification of adverse effects in (1) above by lowering the ground water table. Transporting of water across natural barriers and separate watersheds is generally detrimental to water quality by virtue of a net change of flow patterns and characteristics by reducing or increasing the normal waterbudget in the area. Mr. Woods also pointed out in his letter that, although it was recognized the gridiron pattern of the project made maximum utilization of the available land his office felt that a significant reduction in adverse effects as indicated could be achieved by utilizing the natural systems as much as possible, and that this would require maximum utilization of the existing wetlands, provisions for on-site retention if and where practical, and selective planting to provide for natural filtration and nutrient assimilation. He further indicated that it would be necessary to obtain a water quality certification from his Department, that Petitioner must show the facilities would be properly constructed and operated, and would be required to produce evidence that either the county or the drainage district was in a position to assume responsibility as the permittee (testimony of Trella, Garcia; Exhibit 10). After receipt of the letter from Mr. Woods, Petitioner engaged the firm of Frederic R. Harris, Inc., consulting engineers, of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to prepare a definite project report on drainage that would provide modifications of the drainage plan in order to comply with the objections posed in the Woods letter. This report as prepared by John W. Blue, professional engineer and, although dated September 1974, was available in final form in August at which time a meeting was held between Petitioner's representatives and the successor regional engineer in Orlando, Mr. Thomas Hunnicutt. The meeting was held on August 6, and in attendance were Mr. Gene Medley and Mr. James Hulbert of the regional staff. At this meeting, Mr. Hunnicutt was acquainted with the project and the letter from Mr. Woods, and given the "Harris" report for consideration. This report reflected Petitioner's attempts to satisfy the objections of the department by incorporating the following features in the plan: Specifications to prevent the conveyance of oils, chemicals, silt or other pollutants into the drainage waters during project construction. Planting grass on the erodible earth surfaces exposed during construction. Preservation of about 200 acres of natural hammock ponding sites. Designation of about 75 acres of natural overflow retention areas for filtration of roadside ditch runoff. Construction of about 70 acres of artificial overflow retention areas for filtration of lateral and runoff. Provision for about 209 acres of natural water spreading areas at canal and outfall terminals. Avoidance of direct connections between drainage canals and watercourses or estuaries. Utilization of about 127 acres of dug ponds and existing borrow pits for regulation of runoff peaks. Overexcavation of canals and laterals to make permanent ponds. Whereas the report of the Brevard Engineering Company had been based on a 50 year flood condition, the Harris Report was based primarily upon 10 and 25 year flood conditions. There was a misunderstanding as to Mr. Hunnicutt's comments to Petitioner at this meeting. Petitioner claims Hunnicutt had then stated that the project was in good order and that they should proceed to file their application for a permit. On the other hand, Hunnicutt testified that his remarks were predicated on the fact that since Petitioner had indicated it had made all of the modifications in the project that could he done (by virtue -of the grid system that could not be modified) , he therefore felt there was no point in further discussion. He also was of the opinion that there was sufficient information available at that time to permit consideration of an application by the Department. The Petitioner was provided blank copies of a form entitled Application To Construct/Operate Pollution Sources" (Exhibit 5), and, although Mr. Hunnicutt then acknowledged that this form did not apply too well to the endeavor under consideration he told Petitioner that they should go ahead and file the forms, at Tallahassee, attaching all supporting evidence. The application was filed in the joint names of Volusia County and Atlantic International Investment Corporation and signed by the president of the corporation. It was dated September 9, 1974, and submitted and delivered to the Respondent in Tallahassee on September 10, 1974, with a copy being given to the Orlando regional office. Other than receiving a letter dated October 25, 1974, from the Department of Natural Resources indicating that a water quality certification would not be required for the project, Petitioner heard nothing further from the Respondent until it received a letter from Mr. Hunnicutt denying the permit, dated November 6; 1974. This letter said that the regional staff had reviewed the application and based thereon, plus reviews and comments from Brevard and Volusia County Environmental Control, the permit was recommended to be denied because the applicant had not given the Department "reasonable assurance that the results of this project will be in accord with applicable laws, rules and regulations" and that the project "will have significant adverse effects on water quality as well as the aquatic resources in the area. It further stated that pursuant to Chapter 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 4.07, Florida Administrative Code, the permit was denied and that Petitioner had a right to request a hearing as provided under Chapter 17-4.15, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner filed its petition for review of the denial of the permit under the aforesaid Chapter 17-4.15, Florida Administrative Code on November 15, 1974 (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 16; testimony of Mr. Garcia, Mr. Hunnicutt). In processing the application, Mr. Hunnicutt assigned it to Mr. Medley of his office for review. Medley proceeded to contact local agencies including the Volusia County and Brevard County Environmental Sections; Volusia County Public Works Department, St. Johns Water Management District, the Volusia County Environmental Task Force, and the Florida Audubon Society. He testified that all were opposed to the project for various reasons. Aside from the materials attached as exhibits to the application by Petitioner, which consisted of the Brevard Engineering Report, the Harris Report and plans and specifications and chemical test results taken by Department representatives from sample waters ,of the main canal the additional written materials before the Department prior to the, denial of the permit consisted of a letter from Mr. Kinloch, Pollution Control Coordinator of Brevard County, dated October 31, 1974; a letter from the Volusia County Environmental Task Force (a private group of about 25 professional persons who are concerned environmentalists) dated November 4, 1974; and a statement from Cherie Down a biologist with the Brevard County Health Department, dated September 6, 1973 (Exhibits 17,19 and 24). A letter from Gregory Camp, Environmental Control Officer of Volusia County, dated November 5, 1974, was not received in Respondent's Orlando Office until November 7, and therefore was rejected as an exhibit (Exhibit 18 for identification). In addition, Mr. Camp's conclusions were said by the Assistant County Attorney for Volusia County as not being authorized by the County Commission (testimony of Mr. Stuart). About a week before issuance of the denial letter, a meeting had been held at the Orlando Regional Office attended by its chief, Mr. Senkevich, Mr. Hunnicutt, Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Medley. The purpose of the meeting was to arrive at a decision concerning Petitioner's application. The procedure at the region was for the staff to decide the issue involved and then to assign an engineer in charge -- in this case, Mr. Hunnicutt -- to sign the decision letter to the applicant. No minutes of this meeting were made and the decision was a collective one by Mr. Hunnicutt, Mr. Hulbert, and Mr. Medley. They expressed their common opinion at the meeting that the permit application should be denied primarily because of considerations of water quality. Mr. Senkevich testified that he had the authority to overturn, the recommendation of the staff, but since his staff had unanimously concurred in the denial, he felt that their decision was correct. He is a civil engineer and primarily an administrator, but is not familiar with chemistry, biology, or hydrology. At the time, he erroneously believed that hydrological tests had been made by his staff as to the project and was of the incorrect, view that waters of one classification must flow into receiving waters of the same classification. He conceded at the hearing that he had only briefly studied the plan prior to the meeting and indicated that he had been concerned that the project area eventually would be developed with homes that would require septic tanks and cause a considerable problem with the degradation of water in the canals. He therefore was concerned that the canals would not maintain the requirements for Class III waters. He was unfamiliar with the aspect of danger to aquatic resources other than he felt that the main concern had been regarding trees in the area. He recognized that permits could be issued with specified conditions reasonably necessary for the prevention of pollution and that this could have been done, with respect to Petitioner's project. However, he felt that if this were done, it would usually be hard to enforce and so it was easier to insure that the project conformed to requirements at the time of construction rather than attaching conditions to the permit. He believed that if some of the project area which had not been sold could have been utilized for retention of some of the storm water runoff to provide for percolation or water storage, and if certain low areas could have been utilized for something other than lots, this possibly would have cured the objections of the staff. He did not feel that the changes which had been made by the Harris Report were sufficient to overcome the staff's objections to the project. He acknowledged that water tests in the main canal made by the Department since it had been built and prior to November, 1974, had shown an improvement in the canal water quality. He also acknowledged that none of the five criteria for control of storm water runoff set forth by the Department of Pollution Control in an April 1974 memorandum to regional offices (Exhibit 13) were violated by the proposed project (testimony of Hunnicutt, Senkevich). Mr. Medley, a biologist of the department and the project officer for review of Petitioner's application testified that he was mainly concerned because the project was designed in such a way as to eliminate wetland areas that treat and filter stormwater runoff prior to entry into the Hammock area and provide a place for wildlife to propagate. He felt that water and wildlife quality would diminish by reason of the accelerated flow of water caused by the canal system. This would take place by creating an unstable habitat in which there would be less of a variety of organisms by virtue of polluted waters entering the area. Such a condition would reduce the diversity and quality of species of organisms. He also felt that if water was diverted from one basin to another, it would have an adverse effect on biota because of the change in flow. He further believed that the failure of the applicant to address the question of future development of the project area was significant because once development occurs, canals get storm runoff from surrounding areas, become stagnant and high in nutrients. The state is then obliged to insure water quality and has been unable to do so in other projects of a like nature. He also was concerned because the reports attached to the application contained inaccuracies and it was difficult to determine what was reliable and what was unreliable information. His testimony showed that he, too, was under the erroneous impression that a member of the Department had assessed the hydrological aspects of the project when the Department was processing the application, and acknowledged that it would be difficult to determine if water would be degraded until the actual construction had been completed. However, he expressed his opinion that there is presently insufficient technology to create any canal system that would provide water quality to meet state regulations and it was his belief that wetlands should stay as they are in the interest of water quality. At the hearing, he was unable to describe the proposed canal systems for the project or the proposed vegetative filter area at the end of the canal (testimony of Medley) Mr. Hulbert, another Department bilogist, testified it was unrealistic to think that the project would not eventually be developed with hones. His concerns basically were similar to those of Medley concerning canal water quality in the future and as to inconsistencies in reports submitted by the applicant. He felt that the basic problem was the project grid design with canals following such design rather than natural drainage contours, but that modifications could have been made in the design to satisfy the Department's objections if additional buffer zones had been created along and adjacent to the proposed canals. However, he would not have recommended a permit under any circumstances because of the objections of Brevard County and Volusia County. It was his position that in such a situation the Department should deny the permit and then let the matter be determined by a Hearing Officer. He conceded that he had not examined data submitted by either county and that there was, in fact, no data submitted from Volusia County (testimony of Hulbert). Mr. Hunnicutt, the regional engineer, who is an environmental engineer, testified it was the concensus of all at the meeting that everything they had seen pointed to the fact that project drainage couldn't provide water quality sufficient to meet state requirements. His most objectionable aspect of the project was the drainage pattern and the fact that the canals had to be rather deep and did not follow natural contours, because deep canals below the water table would have standing water and no vegetation as would a more shallow drainage system. He felt that the areas of vegetative growth added by the Petitioner in the Harris Report were not large enough and would not be too effective in removing pollutants by the fast flow rate. He also was concerned about inconsistencies in the applicant's exhibits and saw no point in obtaining more test results on peripheral issues because the Petitioner was "locked in" to a deep canal concept. He, too, was under the mistaken notion that the project had been considered by a hydrologist of the department. Although he felt there were changes that could have been made which would warrant issuance of the permit, there was no point in telling the Petitioner about these because its representatives had said they couldn't make any more changes due to the existing grid system. He also agreed with Hulbert that if local agencies objected as they had in this case, the Department would deny the application but that when such objections were received, they were generally in accord with the existing view of the departmental staff. He testified that the question of the impact of the project on shellfish harvesting in the Indian River was not a serious consideration in his mind insofar as denial of the permit was concerned. He acknowledged that a permit could be issued with conditions, but the problem then became whether the applicant could maintain control effectively to enforce the conditions (testimony of Mr. Hunnicutt). A number of expert witnesses of various disciplines were called by the parties to, testify concerning the various ramifications of the proposed construction by the Petitioner. The following findings of fact are made with respect to specific material aspects of the case: The construction of homes on the tracts at Cape Atlantic Estates in any appreciable volume or any extensive use of the land in the next ten years is highly unlikely. This is due to time required for construction of the drainage facilities, and to the fact that most of the land contracts will not be paid out until the 1980's since owners of the tracts will not secure possession of their land until they have completed payment therefor. The land is not suitable for the installation of septic tanks because of the shallow soil and building permits will not be issued because of the dead-end roads in the project and the absence of paved roads ajoining the property (Exhibit 2, testimony of Trella, Maisel, Blue and Ford). It is impossible to state precisely what the impact of construction of the canal system, roads, ditches, retention ponds and control devices envisioned in the drainage plan will have on the water quality of the canals, Turnbull Hammock, Turnbull Creek, and the Indian River. Drainage of the land area by the construction will produce changes in the environment, but also will make the land accessible to owners, and to some extent may benefit the owners of nearby parcels by draining surface waters and lessening salt water intrusion. One owner of adjoining land objects to any changes in its present natural state (testimony of Blue, Hudson, Stock, Medley, Hunt, Kuperberg, White, De Wees, Fogel & Davenport) Draining and developing the project area will change the surface water flow characteristics by reducing the amount of time water is concentrated or retained in the natural area. This will undoubtedly increase the peak flows and volume of water generated from the area as compared with natural discharge. However, this increase will not exceed the capability of Turnbull Hammock to accept these flows, and increased quantities of waters in the Hammock probably would be beneficial by improving its soil conditions. The increase in peak flows and runoff volumes attributable to the project will not exceed 16 percent of the present ten year storm runoff into the Indian River. In terms of groundwater, recharge in the Cape Atlantic Area occurs only on the Atlantic Coastal ridge. A lowered water table, the result of improving drainage, will decrease the fresh water lead thereby reducing recharge. However, the water table will be lowered only one or two feet and if it is maintained with control structures at these levels as contemplated, improving drainage will not have a serious effect on the quality or quantity of the non-artesian water in the shallow aquifer in the area. The water from approximately 80 percent of the land area will flow into Turnbull Hammock and, in the southwest section of the project area, the water will be held in retention ponds and eventually released in a natural flow. Some water will go to the west toward the St. Johns River basin but it is impossible to tell how much flow this will be. The project will have no significant effect on Lake Harney and it is too far removed from the St. Johns River to have any great impact on its conditions. The drainage of the middle area of the project is ill-defined and water can flow either east or west, depending on how much rain has fallen. In the flat area to the north, water can run in both directions. Passage of water through the designed holding areas vegetation, and then reoxogenation in the canals and spreading systems to Turnbull Hammock will improve surface water quality at the site by creating motion. The roadside swales which bring water to the middle lateral canals will lower the ground water table several feet and this may well improve the water system because presently it is ponded and evaporates or filtrates into the atmosphere. Evidence of some salt water intrusion at the lower end of the Hammock area is evidenced by decayed cypress trees which are not salt water tolerant. Additional fresh water in the Hammock would improve this condition (testimony of McElroy, Blue, Clark, Hudson, McClouth; Exhibit 22). Although the waters in the main canal may not always have met all of the regulatory criteria for Class III waters under Department regulations, its quality has improved over the past several years, particularly with respect to the presence of dissolved oxygen. This is in keeping with the opinion of the experts who agreed that construction produces a temporary. adverse effect on water quality, but the waters soon stabilize and vegetation thereafter appears. When the canal system is completed and connected, a natural flow of water will occur to wash out minerals and other harmful substances, and increase the amounts of dissolved oxygen in the water. It is therefore considered unrealistic to use the test reports obtained from water samples in the present dead-end main canal because they cannot be considered representative of the quality of the water that will be present when the drainage system is in operation. Although it cannot be determined what the exact quality of the canal waters will be when in full operation, there are certain projected consequences which reasonably may be considered likely to occur. After construction of the drainage facilities, the flow of water Bill accelerate and this, in turn, can diminish the quality of animal and plant life to some degree in the Hammock area by reducing the diversity of species. The Hammock is normally anaerobic and nutrients are assimilated there to produce trees, low-lying vegetation, and animal life. Although an increased flow of fresh water will be beneficial to dominant trees, low-lying vegetation might suffer somewhat with a consequent impact on the organisms that feed upon them. However, this is a temporary condition during heavy rain and the degree of change in organisms depends on the frequency of flow and how long the water stays in the Hammock area. Added fresh water in the Hammock will reduce salt water intrusion with consequent beneficial effects. The Hammock can receive a flow of at least two times as much water as is now present during rainfall without adverse effects on the environment as long as urban development has not occurred to produce pollutants in the form of chemicals, tars, oils, and other wastes. Although several expert witnesses foresee eutrophication of the water in the main canal during stagnant periods of the dry season and then flushing of undesirable materials and nutrients accumulated by the eutrophic process into the Hammock during the wet season, the designed holding structures with shallow margins to encourage vegetation and the increased use of natural areas at the north outfall of the project area will filter and reduce substantially the amount of any undesirable material entering the Hammock. Canal systems with standing water are sometimes prone to eventually becoming clogged with aquatic plant life, such as water hyacinths and hydrilla. This, in turn, requires periodic destruction of the plants, usually by chemicals, in order to permit waterflow to continue. Though this possibly may be expected in the main, canal at some point in the future, the planned vegetative filtering system should control excessive entry of the chemical and other pollutants into the Hammock. During the period 1970-74, there was no growth of such plants in the dead-end main canal and no indication that it had become eutrophic (testimony of Blue, Morris, Clark, Hudson, Medley, Hulbert, Down, Stock, Ross). Although the area where Turnbull Creek enters the Indian River is designated as Class II waters, oysters or other shellfish are not present to any extent in the designated area. The designated shellfish harvesting area is in the Indian River south of the Brevard County line. The Indian River is moderately high in salinity and a wedge of this water goes into Turnbull Creek and then to the Hammock. The mixing zone of water is at the entrance of Turnbull which flows into the Indian River. Beyond this mixing zone where fresh water meets salt water, if shellfish exist, the limited amount of fresh water entering the river would have no significant effect upon their growth. Oysters need between ten to 30 parts per thousand salinity in the water for best growth and if the project water flowed into the Indian River the salinity would remain the same approximately 20 to 30 parts per thousand. In fact, a decrease in salinity in the water to some extent favors growth of oysters. However, increased rainfall and runoff can increase bacterial counts in shellfish and decrease the incidence of shellfish predators (testimony of Clark, Kinloch, Down). No significant diversion of waters from the Cape Atlantic Estates areas from natural drainage basins can be established other than some diversion in the eastern portion of the project area. Other than that the flow of ground water cannot be determined with accuracy and, in any event, the project would have little effect on surrounding lakes in the St. Johns River basin. Diversion would seldom occur except when there is a major storm because unless rainfall exceeds one or two inches an hour, it normally will be absorbed by the sandy soil (testimony of Blue, McClough, Hudson).
Findings Of Fact The proposed project is a six-lane, combination low and high level bridge crossing Mill Cove and the St. John's River in Duval County, Florida. The project entails construction of approximately 6,000 feet of low level trestle-type bridge structure and approach spans beginning on the south side of Mill Cove and extending across the Cove to the northern edge of Quarantine Island, an artificial spoil island; 3,000 feet of high level bridge crossing the main channel of the St. John's River; and northern approach spans touching down on Dame Point on the northern shore of the St. John's River. In order to construct the proposed project, JTA is required to obtain a water quality permit and certification from DER. JTA filed its application with DER, accompanied by supporting data, including several studies performed by professional consultants. After review of the application, DHR filed notice of its intent to issue the requested water quality permit and certification, and Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, to oppose the issuance of the permit and certification. Petitioners are various groups and individuals concerned about water quality in the St. John's River and the Jacksonville area. Petitioners' standing to seek relief in this proceeding was stipulated by all parties. Construction of the project will result in: filling of approximately .07 acres of wetlands to construct the south abutment on the shore of Mill Cove; dredging of approximately 185,000 cubic yards of material from Mill Cove to create a 4,400 foot long, 190 foot wide barge access channel, with a five foot navigation control depth parallel to the low level portion of the project; temporary filling of approximately .3 acres of wetlands above mean high water on the south shore of Quarantine Island to provide construction access to the island, which area is to be restored upon completion of construction; construction of a diked upland spoil containment site approximately 31 acres in size above mean high water on Quarantine Island to retain all dredge spoil associated with the project; construction of a temporary dock at the northern end of Quarantine Island for access and staging purposes, which is to be removed on project completion; and filling of approximately 16,000 cubic feet of material waterward of mean high water for rip-rap protection around main piers in the St. John's River. Dredged materials will be removed by hydraulic dredges. The St. John's River and its tributaries have been designated Class III waters by DER in the project area. The project involves dredging below mean high water and filling above mean high water, and is a dredge-and-fill project for purposes of Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and is regulated by DER. The project is an element in a proposed eastern bypass around the City of Jacksonville. It is expected that, as a result of the project, existing area industry will receive more efficient transportation service, commuter trip miles from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville will be reduced, transportation routes to education facilities will be improved, and tourist traffic will be routed around downtown Jacksonville, reducing miles traveled to nearby beach resorts and thereby relieving downtown congestion. The benefits to costs ratio of the project appears positive and beneficial to Duval County and Jacksonville, in that for every dollar spent to construct the project, $2.80 could be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Testimony clearly established that the state waters in the project area are currently severely degraded and are not likely to meet Class III water quality standards. Violations of Class III standards for dissolved oxygen and some heavy metals, such as mercury, presently exist as background conditions in the St. John's River and Mill Cove. Further, a water quality analysis performed by DER in the project area indicates high background concentrations of heavy metals and PCB's in both the water column and sediments in the project area. When the pro posed project is analyzed within the context of these existing background water quality conditions, it appears highly unlikely that any impact from the project will further degrade existing conditions. The project as currently designed includes plans for total containment of spoil material resulting from dredging activity on the upland portions of Quarantine Island. There will be no direct discharge of dredge $materials from this containment area into the receiving waters of the state. JTA performed a water and sediment analysis of the project area, the purpose of which was to determine the existence and concentrations of specific pollutants that could adversely impact Class III waters if reintroduced into the aquatic system. JTA employed a consultant whose analytical program was designed in consultation with DER and complied with all standard testing procedures required by Rule 17-3.03, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis identified three primary-project activities where control of toxic and deleterious materials was critical: turbidity control; upland spoil containment; and direct discharge of spoil water to state waters. Sediments in the Mill Cove area are extremely fine and may be resuspended in the water column in quantities that could violate state water quality standards if dredging is done improperly. It appears from the evidence that any turbidity problem can be avoided by employing silt curtains and hydraulic dredging during channel excavation. Silt curtains should adequately retain turbidity below levels which would violate state water quality standards, in view of the fact that the JTA study hypothesized a "worst-case" condition for projecting turbidity and pollutant concentration by assuming no upland spoil containment, silt curtains or reasonable mixing zone. Although use of silt curtains and hydraulic dredging cannot absolutely guarantee zero-discharge of suspended sediments from the dredging area, the proposed system of turbidity control is adequate to provide reasonable assurance of non-violation of state water quality standards. Due to the existing toxic background conditions in Mill Cove, DER imposed a permit condition requiring spoil from dredging activities to be completely contained in an upland landfill-type site, with no overflow that could allow effluent to return to waters of the state. The upland dike system proposed in the project application is designed to retain all spoil material and water without direct discharge into state waters. Testimony established that the proposed dike system is designed to hold far more spoil material than the proposed project will generate. Although the dike system is to be constructed from dredged material previously deposited on Quarantine Island, it appears from the testimony that these materials were dredged from the main channel of the St. John's River and are cleaner and sandier in character than sediments in the Mill Cove area. The dike system, in conjunction with natural percolation and evaporation, is adequately designed to retain dredge spoil on the upland portion of Quarantine Island, and can reasonably be expected not to release toxic and deleterious substances into receiving waters of the state. It is also significant that a condition of the requested permit requires project water quality monitoring to afford continuing assurance that the project will not violate standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. These standards and the conditions required to achieve them have been included in DER's letter of intent to issue the permit for this project. It is specifically concluded from the evidence that project dredging will not release toxic and deleterious substances into Class III waters in violation of state water quality standards, and that project dredging in Mill Cove incorporates reasonable safeguards for spoil disposal and turbidity control so as to assure non-violation of state water quality standards. JTA plans to use a direct discharge method to dispose of storm water from the bridge. Storm water will fall through 4-inch screened holes called "scuppers" placed at regular intervals along the bridge surface directly into either Mill Cove or the St. John's River. JTA was required to provide in its application reasonable assurance that storm water runoff from the Project would not exceed applicable state standards for turbidity, BOD, dissolved solids, zinc, polychlorinated biphenols, lead1 iron, oils or grease, mercury, cadmium and coliform. To this end, JTA submitted a study entitled Effect of Rainfall Runoff from Proposed Dame Point Bridge on Water Quality of St. John's River. This study analyzed the chemical composition of storm water runoff from an existing bridge, comparable in both size and design, to the proposed project, which crosses the St. John's River south of the City of Jacksonville. This study adequately established that storm water runoff into the St. John's River across the length of the proposed bridge will not degrade the water quality of the St. John's River below current water quality standards. All but three of the parameters tested in the study were within standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The remaining three pollutants were either not automobile-related, or would not violate applicable water quality standards after a reasonable opportunity" for mixing with receiving waters. One of these pollutants, mercury, is not automobile-related, and the concentration of mercury discovered in bridge runoff test samples was essentially the same as that measured in rainfall samples. The sampling for mercury was performed using the ultrasensitive "atomic absorption" method, which is capable of measuring tenths of a part per billion of mercury. Another method, the "Dithizone" method, is a technique recognized as effective by DER, and would have, if utilized, yielded a result within the "none detectable" standard contained in Rule 17-3.05(2) , Florida Administrative Code. As to the remaining two pollutants, coliform and lead, testimony established that a dilution rate of 400 to 1, after mixing with receiving waters, would not result in violation of applicable Class III water standards. Testimony also clearly established that water circulation in the project area would result in the requisite dilution ratio of approximately 400 to 1. The storm water runoff study was performed on a bridge similar in all important characteristics to the proposed project, and therefore validates the scientific methodology utilized to determine the expected impact of runoff from the proposed project on water quality in the St. John's River. The applicant has provided in its permit application the best practicable treatment available to protect state waters in the design of both the low and high level portions of the proposed bridge. Extensive research and analysis of design alternatives for both the low and high level portions of the bridge were undertaken by JTA and its consultants prior to selecting the proposed design for the bridge. JTA prepared and submitted to DER, as part of the application process, a document entitled Summary of Construction Techniques in Mill Cove, Dame Point Expressway. This document analyzed and summarized the available construction and design alternatives for the low level trestle portions of the project. The analysis included consideration of overhead construction, construction from a temporary wooden structure parallel to the project, and construction from barges using a shallow channel parallel to the project. The design chosen will cost more than one million dollars less than the next alternative, and will cut construction time by two years over the next alternative design. Given the demonstrated need for the proposed project, the already degraded water quality in the project area, the safeguards for water quality contained-in the project design, and the savings to be realized in both cost and time of construction, the design presently contained in the application is the best practicable. Both Petitioners and JTA have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 7 have also been substantially adopted. To the extent that proposed findings of fact submitted by either Petitioners or JTA are not adopted in the Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether Respondents have violated Chapter 403, Florida Statutes by dredge and fill activities at Sampson Lake, Bradford County, Florida, and should therefore be subject to corrective action and costs, as set forth in Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, dated March 4, 1982. This case arises from Petitioner's filing of a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action against Respondent Dudley P. Hardy on March 4, 1982, alleging that he conducted dredge and fill activities on property which he owned adjacent to Sampson Lake without obtaining a departmental permit for such activities. The notice further alleged that such activities created a stationary installation reasonably expected to be a source of pollution, and sought to have the Respondent take corrective action by restoring the affected area, and also to nay investigative costs, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hardy responded to the Notice of Violation and therein requested an informal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. He also averred that he only owned a one-half interest in the subject property, and that the other one-half interest was owned by J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. Based upon Petitioner's request, a formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, was scheduled for July 14-15, 1982, but pursuant to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, the hearing was rescheduled for August 12- 13, 1982, by Order dated May 24, 1982. Petitioner thereafter amended its notice of violation to include J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom as Respondents in the proceeding as indispensable parties. By Order dated July 7, 1982, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend was granted. By Order of Consolidation dated April 28, 1982, this case was consolidated with five other cases involving similar activities at Sampson Lake. (DOAH Cases Nos. 82-907and 02-909 - 82-912) However, prior to the scheduled hearing, counsel for Petitioner advised the Hearing Officer that the other cases had been resolved by consent orders. At the hearing, Respondent J. D. Odom, Jr. appeared without counsel and was advised of his rights in a Chapter 120 administrative proceeding. He acknowledged his understanding of such rights and elected to proceed without counsel. Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted ten exhibits. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted two exhibits. After the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent J. Odom submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer, dated August 17, 1982, which enclosed a copy of a survey which had been previously received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and photographs which had not been received in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike these matters, and the motion is hereby partially granted. The additional photographs presented by Respondent can not be taken into consideration in this Recommended Order because they were not admitted in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner's post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are deemed either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact. In like manner, the statements made by Respondent Odom in his post-hearing letter that are unrelated to the photographs have been fully considered.
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed, dated March 12, 1980, Sampson Lake Properties, Inc. conveyed a parcel of the land located in Bradford County, Florida to Respondent, Dudley P. Hardy. The property is bordered by Sampson Lake on the west and Rowell Canal on the south. By warranty deed, dated July 10, 1980, Hardy conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the property to Respondents J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. (Testimony of J. Odom, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondents' Exhibit 1) Rowell Canal is a man-made canal which is designated as Class III waters of the State, and connects lakes Rowell and Sampson, also Class III waters of the State. Lakes Sampson and Rowell are natural lakes that are owned by more than one person. Each lake is larger than ten acres with an average depth of more than two feet existing throughout the year, and neither becomes dry each year. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondents' property lies immediately west of a railroad right-of-way, and a railroad ditch lies parallel to the property next to a railroad trestle. The ditch was approximately 45 feet wide at Rowell Canal and some 215 feet long at the time Respondents acquired the property. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer) At some undisclosed date in 1981, Respondent J. Odom widened and deepened the west side of the ditch with a backhoe in order to create a canal which would enable him to launch boats at the Rowell Canal. The dirt removed from the ditch was piled along the side of the newly created canal. When finished, the canal was some 213 feet long, 20 to 30 feet wide, with depths ranging from 2 to 7 feet. At the present time, a natural earthen plug remains between the excavated canal and the Rowell Canal. During the rainy season, water overflows the plug and any waters from the Odom Canal would interchange to some degree with those of Rowell Canal. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Barber, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondents' Composite Exhibit 2) Respondent Odom did not apply for a permit to conduct the dredging and filling activities on his property. After Petitioner became aware of the situation in September, 1981, two members of the enforcement section of Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict visited the site and determined that the Department had enforcement jurisdiction due to the fact that the dominant vegetation for approximately the first hundred feet of Respondents' canal from Rowell Canal to the north was a band of cypress trees (Taxodium Sp.). Such a wetland species serves as a guide to determining the landward extent of waters of the State, pursuant to Rules 17-4.02(17) and 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. There is also a large number of pine trees on the property. Thereafter, by letter of November 30, 1981, Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict Manager sent a letter to Respondent Hardy placing him on notice concerning unauthorized dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, Respondents' Exhibit 2) By warranty deed, dated July 26, 1982, Respondent Hardy conveyed his interest in the property to J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On August 10, 1982, DER personnel took dissolved oxygen readings of the dredged canal. Analysis of the water samples reflected depressed dissolved oxygen levels throughout the canal in violation of water quality standards for Class III waters. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) A dead-end canal reasonably can be expected to cause pollution due to the fact that organic matter decays on the bottom and becomes a nutrient trap, thus depressing the dissolved oxygen in the water. During the inspection by DER personnel, gas bubbles were observed in the canal, thus indicating the presence of hydrogen sulphate, which is indicative of anaerobic conditions. The presence of fish in the canal at the present time indicates there is enough dissolved oxygen to sustain life, however. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Until a few years ago, Sampson Lake had not been developed. However, at the present time many canals have been built and Petitioner has issued twelve notices of violations in the area. Canals such as that of Respondents' can be expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the waters of Rowell Canal and Sampson Lake due to the entry of water containing excessive nutrients. (Testimony of Barber) Respondent Odom Intended to remove the earthen plug at the end of his canal in order to gain access to Rowell Canal from his proposed cement boat ramp to provide access to Sampson Lake. About twelve to fifteen years ago, a dam was built on Sampson Lake to control the water level. Prior to construction of the dam, a road existed around the lake which could be driven upon approximately 50 percent of the time during dry season. At the present time, Respondent can transport a boat through his property to Rowell Canal with difficulty because of the existing trees. Prior to the dredge and fill activity of Respondent, a boat could be moved through the property to Rowell Canal, generally in the area where the present dredged canal is located. (Testimony of Respondent Odom) Petitioner expended $132.34 in costs of investigating Respondents' dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Barber, Petitioner's Exhibit 10)
Recommendation That Petitioner issue a final order requiring Respondents to take corrective action with regard to their dredge and fill activities as specified in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, and to pay departmental investigative costs, but withhold the effective date thereof to provide Respondents a period of thirty days to make application for an "after- the-fact" permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, F.A.C. If they fail to make such application within the required period, the final order should then become effective. If application is made, the effect of the final order should be staved until conclusion of proceedings on the application. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel and Michael Tammaro, Certified Legal Intern DePartment of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dudley P. Hardy, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1030 Starke, Florida 32091 J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife Post Office Box 517 Starke, Florida 32091 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-908 DUDLEY P. HARDY, J.D. ODOM, JR., and VERNIE PHILLIPS ODOM, Respondents. /
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the application for a surface water management permit (permit no. 4-009-0077AM) filed by the Respondent, David A. Smith (Applicant), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Applicant is the owner of the subject property. The Applicant filed an application for a permit to construct a stormwater management system which was proposed to serve a residential and golf course development to be known as Sabal Hammocks. The site of the proposed project is approximately 720 acres in size and is located in township 24 south, sections 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34, range 35 east, Brevard County, Florida. The entire project site for the Sabal Hammocks development is located within the boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District. To the west of the project site is an 140 acre public park that treats its own stormwater and releases pre-treated stormwater during some storm events into the canals on the Sabal Hammocks site. The Applicant's site is located adjacent to Lake Poinsett and prior uses of the land have included cattle grazing and the cultivation of rye and oats. The Applicant filed his application for the stormwater management permit (permit NO. 4-009-0077AM) on December 22, 1989. That application was deemed complete by the District on June 19, 1990. The District issued a notice of its intended action to approve the permit application on June 28, 1990. Save timely filed a petition challenging the proposed action. By law the District is the appropriate agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications for stormwater management permits within the subject area. Save is an association of individual persons and representatives from groups who utilize the waters of Lake Poinsett and its surrounding areas for recreational and business purposes. The receiving waters for stormwater discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks development will be Lake Poinsett. That water body is classified as Class III waters. Currently, a dike system exists along the southern boundary of the subject property. That dike system separates the internal grazing lands of the parcel from the lower marsh and flooded areas external to the dike. A series of ditches cross the parcel to drain the interior areas. Two agricultural discharge pumps are currently in use at the site. The operation of those pumps has been authorized pursuant to a consent order approved by the District's governing board on December 13, 1990. The dike system on the subject site has been in place since the 1970s. The original construction specifications of the dike are unknown. Sometime in the 1980s, several openings or breaches were cut in the dike system. Those breaches were opened pursuant to permits issued by the District and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) . The breaches were cut to a sufficient width and depth to allow boats to navigate through to interior areas of the subject property during those times when the water levels outside the dike would allow such entrance. The breaches were not cut to ground level and the original dike remained intact and uncompromised by the breaches. That is, the dike has not failed to impede water movement and the integrity of the dike was not weakened by the breaches. The original outline, dimension of the dike, remained visible despite the breaches. In 1986, the Applicant requested permission from the District staff in order to close or restore the dike breaches. At that time, the District staff advised David Smith that a permit would not be required to restore the dike since such improvements would be considered a maintenance exemption. Subsequently, and in reliance upon the representations made by the District's director,, the Applicant closed the breaches and restored the continuity of the dike system of the subject property. The Applicant's work to close the breaches was performed in an open manner, would have been visible to persons using the adjacent marsh or water areas for recreational purposes, and was completed at least one year prior to the application being filed in this case. Neither the District nor DER has asserted that the work to complete the original dike in the 1970s, nor the breaches completed in the 1980s, nor the restoration of the breaches in 1986 was performed in violation of law. Further, the District had knowledge of the subject activities. Save contends that the restoration of the dike system was contrary to law and that it was not afforded a point of entry to contest the closure of the breaches. Additionally, Save infers that the original construction of the dike system in the early 1970s was without authorization from authorities. Save's contention is that the prior condition of the property, ie. the parcel with breached openings, must be considered the correct pre- development condition of the land. The District, however, considered the pre- development condition of the parcel to be that of a diked impoundment separated from Lake Poinsett. The same assumption was made regarding the pumping of water from the area enclosed by the dike via an existing 36 inch pump which discharges to Bass Lake (and then to Lake Poinsett) and an existing 12 inch pump that discharges into the marsh areas adjacent to the property (between it and Lake Poinsett). The District's consideration of the site and the application at issue was based upon the actual condition of the land as it existed at the time this application was filed. The pre-development peak rate and volume of discharge from the site was calculated based upon the maximum discharge capacity of the two existing pumps (described above). Accordingly, the maximum pre-development rate of discharge from the two existing pumps is in the range of 90-107 cubic feet per second. The pre-development volume of discharge, based upon actual pump records, was calculated as 710 acre-feet for a 25 year, 96 hour storm event. The total areas encompassed by the Applicant's proposal are the 720 acre site where the golf course and residential homes will be located together with 140 acres from an adjacent public park. The runoff entering the stormwater system from that public park will have already been treated in its own stormwater management system. The Applicant's proposed stormwater system will consist of a series of lakes and interconnected swales. This wet detention system will capture the runoff and direct its flow through the series of swales and lakes via culverts. The waters will move laterally from the northwestern portion of the parcel to she southeastern end of the site. From the final collecting pond, she waters will be pumped to Bass Lake and ultimately flow to Lake Poinsett. Wet detention systems generally provide greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment systems. The maintenance associated with these systems is also considered less intensive than other types of treatment systems. The wet detention system proposed for Sabal Hammocks accomplishes three objectives related to the flow of stormwater. The first objective, the collection of the. stormwater, requires the creation of several lakes or pools into which water is directed and accumulates. The size and dimension of the lakes will allow the volume of accumulated water to be sufficient to allow stormwater treatment. The capacity of the lakes will also provide for a sufficient volume to give adequate flood protection during rainfall events and storms. The second objective, the treatment of the stormwater, requires the creation of a littoral zone within the system. The littoral zone, an area of rooted aquatic plants within the lakes or ponds, provide for the natural removal of nutrients flowing into the system. The plants serve as a filtering system whereby some nutrients are processed. The proposed littoral zone in this project constitutes approximately 37 percent of the detention system surface area and therefore exceeds District size requirements. The depth of the treatment volume for the proposed system will not exceed 18 inches. A third objective accomplished by the creation of the series of lakes is the provision for an area where pollutants flowing into the detention system may settle and through sedimentation be removed from the water moving through the system. The average residence time estimated for runoff entering the Sabal Hammocks detention system is 48 days. The permanent pool volume will, therefore, be sufficient to assure the proposed project exceeds the District's requirements related to residence time. The design and volume of the Sabal Hammocks system will also exceed the District's requirements related to the dynamic pool volumes. In this case the Sabal Hammocks system will provide for approximately 65 acre-feet of runoff. Thus, the proposed system will adequately control and detain the first 1 inch of runoff from the site. The length to width ratio for the proposed lakes, 18:1, exceeds the District's minimum criteria (2:1). The final lake or pond into which the stormwater will flow will be 17 acres and will have 15 acres of planted wetland vegetation. Before waters will be released into Bass Lake, the site's runoff will pass through 3100 linear feet of this final lake before being discharged. The proposed project will eliminate the two agricultural pumps and replace them with one pump station. That station will contain four pumps with a total pumping capacity of 96 cubic feet per second. Under anticipated peak times, the rate of discharge from the proposed single station is estimated to be less than the calculated peak pre-development rate of discharge (90-107 c.f.s.). The estimated peak volume of discharge will also be lower than the pre-development discharge volumes for the comparable storm events. The proposed pump station is designed to be operated on electrical power but will have a backup diesel generator to serve in the event of the interruption of electrical service. Additionally, the pumps within the station will be controlled by a switching device that will activate the pump(s) only at designated times. It is unlikely that all four pumps will activate during normal rainfall events. The Applicant intends to relinquish maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system including the pump station to Brevard County, Florida. Finished floor elevations for all residential structures to be built within the Sabal Hammocks development will be at a minimum of 18.2 mean sea level. This level is above that for a 100 year flood. The floor elevations will be at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation even in the event of the dike or pump failure or both. Finished road elevations for the project will be set at 17.5 feet mean sea level. This elevation meets or exceeds the County's requirements regarding the construction of roadways. It is estimated that the Sabal Hammocks system will retain at least 26 percent of all storm events on site. If the lake system is utilized to irrigate the golf course the proposed system could retain 45 percent of all storm events on site. Of the 31.27 acres of wetlands within the proposed site, only 4.73 acres of wetlands will be disturbed by the construction of this project. Some of the wetlands are isolated and presently provide minimal benefits to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species. No threatened or endangered species are currently utilizing the isolated wetlands. The areas of wetlands which are productive and which will be disturbed by the development will be replaced by new wetlands to be created adjacent to their current location at a lower elevation. The new wetlands should provide improved wetland function since those areas will be planted with a greater diversity of wetland plant species. Additionally, other wetland areas will be enhanced by the removal of invader species and increased hydroperiod in the area. The integrated pesticide management plan for the proposed project will be sufficient with the additional condition chat use of Orthene, Subdue, and Tersan LSR will be authorized when approved insecticides or fungicides have not been effective. In this case, the estimates regarding the water quality for the proposed project were based upon data from studies of multifamily residential projects. Data from single family/ golf course developments was not available. Therefore, based upon the data used, the projected runoff concentrations for this project should over estimate pollutants and are more challenging to the treatment system than what is reasonably expected to occur. In this regard, the overall treatment efficiencies are estimated to be good for all of the parameters of concern with the exception of nitrogen. The projected increase in nitrogen, however, will not adversely impact the receiving water body. The projected average concentration for each constituent which may be discharged is less than the state standard with the exceptions of cadmium and zinc. In this regard, the District's proposed conditions (set forth in the District's exhibits 4 and 9) adequately offset the potential for a violation of state water quality standards. More specifically, the use of copper-based algaecides in the stormwater management system should be prohibited; the use of galvanized metal culverts in the stormwater management system, or as driveway culverts, should be prohibited; and the use of organic fertilizers or soil amendments derived from municipal sludge on the golf course should be prohibited. Additionally, a water quality monitoring plan should be implemented by the Applicant. The monitoring plan mandates the collection of water samples from areas in order to adequately monitor the overall effectiveness of the treatment facility. The source of cadmium is not be expected to be as great as projected since the most common source for such discharge is automobiles. It is unlikely that the golf course use will generate the volume of discharge associated with automobile use that the multifamily data presumed. The projected quality of the discharges from this project should be similar to the ambient water quality in Lake Poinsett. In fact, the post- development pollutant loading rates should be better than the pre-development pollutant loading rates. The discharge from the proposed Sabal Hammocks project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in Lake Poinsett nor will the groundwater discharges violate applicable state groundwater quality standards. The floodways and floodplains, and the levels of flood flows or velocities of adjacent water courses will not be altered by the proposed project so as to adversely impact the off- site storage and conveyance capabilities of the water resource. The proposed project will not result in the flow of adjacent water courses to be decreased to cause adverse impacts. The proposed project will not cause hydrologically-related environmental functions to be adversely impacted The proposed project will not endanger life, health, or property. The proposed project will not adversely affect natural resources, fish and wildlife. The proposed project is consistent with the overall objectives of the District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the governing board of the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the application for permit number 4-009-0077AM with the conditions outlined within the District's exhibits numbered 4, 8, and 9 and as previously stated in the notice of intent. DONE and ENTERED this 2 day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2 day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5247 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. 8 Paragraphs 13 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 26 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 34 it is accepted that compensating storage was not required. Otherwise, unnecessary, irrelevant, or comment. With regard to paragraph 35, it is accepted the proposed system meets the first 1 inch of runoff requirement otherwise, unnecessary or irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 41 are rejected as irrelevant, argumentative or comment. Paragraphs 42 and 43 are accepted. With the deletion of the last sentence which is irrelevant, paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraphs 44 through 49 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 50 is accepted, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 52 through 56 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted. Paragraphs 59 and 60 are rejected as irrelevant, comment, or argumentative. Paragraphs 61 and 62 are accepted. The first sentence of Paragraph 63 is accepted. The remainder of the Paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed project will benefit the wetland areas in an unquanitifiable measure due to the enhancements to prior wetlands and the creation of new wetlands. The first sentence of paragraph 64 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 65 is accepted. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is accepted. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are accepted. Paragraph 70 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are accepted. Paragraph 74 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary. Paragraphs 75 through 78 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 79 through 82 are accepted. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are rejected as argument or comment. It is accepted that the Corp and DER are aware of the restoration of the dike and that neither has asserted such work was performed contrary to law. Paragraph 86 is rejected as comment on the evidence or irrelevant. It is accepted that the District advised Applicant that he could restore the dike system and that the District was apprised of the completion of that work. With regard to paragraph 87, it is accepted that the restoration of the dike entailed filling the breaches to conform to the dike's original design; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 88 and 89 and the first sentence of Paragraph 90 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 90 and Paragraphs 91 through 93 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment. Paragraph 94 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT: Paragraphs 1 through 78 is accepted. Paragraph 79 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 80 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY SAVE: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary D. Hansen 1600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Suite 300 Daytona Beach, Florida 32119 Brain D.E. Canter HABEN, CULPEPPER, DUNBAR & FRENCH, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wayne Flowers Jennifer Burdick St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178
