Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES CMI is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida. CMI owns a mine site as is depicted in the permit application, which mine site is known as "Pine Level". Alan R. Behrens owns residential property approximately two miles from Pine Level, which abuts Horse Creek. He maintains an individual well for domestic and other purposes, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. Charlotte County is a government entity and a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The City of North Port is an incorporated municipality of the State of Florida, and is a substantially affected person under the statute. The Environmental Confederation (ECOSWF), a citizens group, is a substantially affected person under the statute. The District is the agency with the responsibility for reviewing and ruling upon CMI's water use permit application. APPLICATION AND PROCESS CMI proposes to operate a phosphate mine facility at "Pine Level" ("site"). The site is located approximately seven miles west of Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. The mine reserves at the site are approximately 17,700 acres. 9,000 to 10,000 acres are projected for mining. In 1978, Consumptive Use Permit No. 200103, was issued and in 1986, the current owners purchased the corporation which held the permit, and changed the name of the corporation to CMI. The Industrial Water Use Permit has not been used since it was issued to a prior owner of the site, and provided for average daily withdrawals of 13.6 mgd from wells. In 1984, this permit was renewed and modified to provide for average daily withdrawals of 12.8 mgd from deep wells. The groundwater withdrawals currently sought by CMI is 6.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") average daily withdrawal, which totals include 5.1 mgd from deep wells for use in the amine flotation process and 1.7 mgd for sealing the matrix slurry pumps. This reduction to 6.9 mgd in permitted withdrawals is a significant reduction. In addition, the proposed permit allows 3.7 mgd to be withdrawn from the surficial aquifer by dewatering mine cuts. In November, 1990, CMI submitted an application for renewal. In November 1991, CMI submitted to the District a revised Water Use Application No. 200103.02 ("application") to renew and modify the existing water use permit. The District requested more information, and CMI provided additional information and supplemental responses to aid in the review and evaluation of the application. The District prepared and submitted a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and the District staff has prepared a "draft" Permit No. 200103.02 authorizing the withdrawal of the quantities requested in the application with certain conditions. In addition to renewal and modification of the water use permit, which is the subject of this proceeding, CMI will be required to participate in numerous regulatory reviews and permitting procedures (i.e. a development of regional impact evaluation, a federal environmental impact statement, federal approvals under the Clean Water Act [including a national pollutant discharge elimination system ("NPDES") permit], and a conceptual reclamation plan review) before CMI may commence mining, and consequently, begin any withdrawal of water. The mining process will utilize large walking draglines to excavate over burden and stack it beside the active mining area for land reclamation. The ore material called "matrix" will be dug up by the draglines, placed into an earthen pit where it will be slurried with a high pressure water jet. A pump will pick up this slurried matrix material, pump it back to the processing plant where it will first go through various separation devices, including screens and cyclones. The course material termed "pebble" will be separated and parts of that will be directly saleable as a product. The bulk of the phosphate product is contained in intermediate-sized material called concentrate feed. The concentrate feed consists of ore and sand. The ore is separated from the sand in a process called "flotation". The flotation process is a two stage process that ends up separating the tailings sand, which can then go back to the sand-clay flocculation and mixing units, and be pumped out ultimately for land reclamation back in the mine-out areas. The phosphate product which is called "wet rock", is placed in storage bins where it can drain, and be loaded onto rail cars for shipment. The "amine flotation process" is the second stage of flotation where sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water for the amine flotation phase, because any amount of contaminants, including organic reagents, will adversely affect the process. Any mineral particles must be removed so that the amine may attach itself to the phosphate. Any contaminants will destroy or significantly and adversely affect not only the phosphate recovery, but the entire flotation process. Deep well water is requested for use in the amine flotation process because it is clean. All phosphate mines in Florida currently rely on deep well water. 5.2 mgd is the minimum amount of "clean" water needed to assure efficient processing of the amine flotation process of the mine beneficiation plant. Deep well withdrawals are also commonly used for the purpose of sealing or protecting the packing of pumps at various points in the mine system in order to avoid damage to the equipment. These wells are often referred to as "sealing water wells". The Pine Level mine will require 1.7 mgd for this purpose. Water for the sealing water wells must be clean and clear in order to effectively seal pumps for leaks. The Pine Level project will provide 400-500 construction jobs during the construction period. It will provide approximately 200 full-time jobs with an annual payroll of about five million dollars once it is in operation. It will result in about one thousand additional jobs providing services to the development. It will pay in excess of one million dollars a year to DeSoto County in ad valorem taxes. TECHNICAL CRITERIA The water use is a reasonable and beneficial use. 5.2 mgd groundwater withdrawal is "necessary to fill a certain reasonable demand." The technical criteria relating to water level or rates of flow impacts set forth in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, are not applicable in this proceeding because the District has not established any regulatory levels or rates of flow for the area encompassed by the application. In addition, this presumption only addresses surface water withdrawals. Phosphate mining is a beneficial activity and is consistent with the public interest. There is no significant risk of salt water intrusion. The water use withdrawal will not degrade the water quality in the aquifer by causing any contamination plume to spread. There have been no contaminant plumes identified on site. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS There is sufficient ground water at the site of a suitable quality and quantity to support the proposed phosphate mining and beneficiation activities. The local hydrogeology at the site consists of an upper layer known as the surficial aquifer. Rain penetrates the surficial aquifer to flow vertically to the water table. The water that is not consumed by vegetation at this layer will flow either to a nearby stream channel or will leak down through a semi- confining layer. The water continues to seep vertically into the lower underlying limestone aquifers. There are three limestone water-bearing layers: the intermediate, the Suwannee or Upper Floridan, and the Avon Park or Lower Floridan aquifers, respectively. The intermediate and the underlying Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. Likewise, the Avon Park aquifer and the Suwannee aquifer are separated by another semi-confining layer. At the site, wells in the intermediate aquifer will draw water to seal the bearings on the matrix slurry pumps. There will be one deep well in the Suwannee and one deep well in the Avon Park to draw for the beneficiation plant. The groundwater modeling performed by CMI simulated the four aquifers, that is, the surficial aquifer and each of the three limestone aquifers. An Aquifer Performance Test ("APT") was performed at the site. The data generated from the APT was used to calculate various aquifer parameters, for example, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and leakiness. This information was then used in setting up the groundwater flow model that ultimately was incorporated into the application. During the District staff's review of the application, the deep well withdrawal quantities requested by CMI were compared with approximately 6 other phosphate mines of comparable size, acreage, and type of operation. As a result of this comparison, the staff found CMI's requested use to be less than the other six phosphate mines. The use of recycled water in the amine flotation process in place of deep well water in the past by CMI has proven unsuccessful because a constant temperature and a constant ph level could not be maintained with recycled water, and recycled water contains traces of fatty acids and oils, which also negatively affect the amine flotation process. C.F. Industries, Inc., has been operating a phosphate mine in Hardee County, Florida, since 1978. C.F. Industries, Inc., has since 1983 at the Hardee County mine, successfully substituted recirculation water for deep well water for operation of the amine flotation circuit on a routine basis. C.F. Industries, Inc., presently plans to employ substitution of some recirculation water for deep well water in a new yet-to-be permitted mine. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing Hardee County mine requires use of deep well water for start-up purposes to "charge" the system. C.F. Industries, Inc., at its existing mine, uses deep well water to respond to abnormal operational conditions, including excessive rainfall events, when the quality of the normal recirculation water is not suitable for substitution of deep well water. Neither CMI, nor District staff was aware prior to hearing, that the C.F. mine was successfully substituting recycled water for deep well water in the amine flotation process. At the time of making the representations to the District about necessary water quality requirements of the flotation process, CMI had a study, entitled, Amine Water Evaluation, Pine Level Project, July 27, 1984, ("Pilot Plant Study"), which concluded that deep well pumping and discharge could be reduced by use of water drawn from mine cuts. The Pilot Plant study was site specific to CMI's proposed phosphate mine. The Pilot Plant study bench tests were verified in the same pilot plant facility CMI uses to verify the grade of ore on the Pine Level Site. The Pilot Plant study or its results were known to CMI officials or experts involved in the permit application at issue in this case. CMI did not inform District staff of the existence or conclusions of the Pilot Plant study. The Pilot Plant study indicates that CMI could reduce its water usage by substituting water from mine cuts for deep well water. CMI did no studies to determine if the substitution of mine cut water for deep well water, as suggested by the Pilot Plant Study, was feasible to implement. SURFACE WATER IMPACTS The phosphate ore (matrix), is extracted by an excavation machine called a "dragline", which opens mining cuts of approximately 32 to 35 feet in depth, 330 feet wide, and up to 4,000 feet long. Seepage occurs into the mine cuts from the water table, and must be pumped out in order to see and extract the matrix. This dewatering is also necessary to protect the draglines against slope stability problems. Water pumped out of the mining cuts is introduced into the mine water recirculation system which is operated for purposes of collecting and recycling water within the mine complex. The matrix that is extracted from the mining cut is placed in a shallow excavation near the cut, and is converted to a slurry and, thereafter, transported hydraulically to the mine processing (or "beneficiation") plant. The beneficiation plant uses considerable quantities of water, utilizing supplies from within the mine system (i.e. surface water) and water from deep wells. Sand tailings and sand and clay mixture are by-products of the mining process. Recycled water is used to transport waste clay and sand from the plant to the disposal and reclamation areas. Reclamation takes 1-2 years for areas reclaimed with sand tailings and 5-6 years for areas reclaimed with a sand-clay mixture. Groundwater that is used in the processing plant is recycled. Water within the mine is recycled a number of times, and CMI's proposal calls for 90 percent of the total mine demand to be satisfied by this recirculation system and approximately 96 percent of the water used is recyclable water. DEWATERING AND WATER BALANCE CMI's mine pit dewatering activities result in the withdrawal of water from the surficial aquifer. A "water balance" demonstrates that requested quantities relate to reasonable mining, processing, and dewatering needs. The "water balance" for the mining operation evidences a balance between sources and uses/losses. The sources of water in the CMI water balance that input to the mining operation include groundwater from wells (6.9 mgd), mine cut dewatering or water table drainage (3.7 mgd), and collected rainfall (3.1 mgd). Uses and losses associated with the mining operation include water retained in clays (6.7 mgd), water shipped with final product (.7 mgd), evapotranspiration and evaporation (3.0 mgd), water used for agricultural irrigation (5.0 mgd), and water seeping from the Mine Water Surge Area ("MWSA") (1.2 mgd). The water balance matrix moisture component of 2.9 mgd is not a withdrawal of water for water use permitting purposes. The District's modeling of the impacts resulting from mine cut dewatering resulted in a finding of 2.34 MGD as opposed to the 3.7 mgd derived by CMI. For calculation purposes, rainfall is collected at the rate of 3,974 gallons per acre per day. CMI calculates that it will collect 3.1 mgd of rainfall, and use it in its recirculation system. The 3.1 mgd calculation is based on the amount of rain that will fall on 600 acres of mine water surge area, 80 acres of plant site, and two 50 acre mine cuts. CMI plans to mine 450 acres each year at the Pine Level Site over a period of 22 years. Runoff over disturbed areas on the CMI mine site must be captured, and will become part of the recirculation system. Assuming only one year of disturbed area during the permit term, CMI has failed to account for nearly 1.8 mgd in its water balance (450 acres x 3,974 gallons/acre/day). CMI plans to pump any rainfall collected from all disturbed areas to the mine water surge area (MWSA). CMI has not included any acres of disturbed area in its calculations of the amount of rainfall it will collect for the current permit. CMI has not submitted a mine plan. Without a mine plan, the number of disturbed acres cannot be determined. Because CMI's water balance does not include rainfall collected over disturbed areas, the water balance is incorrect. The rainfall collected from the disturbed areas will increase the amount of water that CMI will need to discharge or use for agricultural purposes. Excavation of the Mine Water Surge Area will cause dewatering of the surficial aquifer. No analysis was done of how much dewatering of the surficial aquifer will occur as a result of the excavation of the MWSA, or of the potential impacts to wetlands as a result of the dewatering activities. The District's one foot draw down presumption applies to dewatering as well as to groundwater pumping. The proposed dewatering setback from wetlands was set at 660 feet. The 660 foot setback distance is in lieu of mitigation if CMI wishes to mine within the setback distance, it will be required to implement mitigation procedures. Dewatering draw downs in the surficial aquifer as great as six and one-half to seven feet could occur on the CMI site at 660 feet from a mine cut under dry weather conditions. At 660 feet, the predicted draw down is nearly one and one-half feet using a mine pit depth of 26 feet, based on a three foot water table and a 29 foot average mine cut depth for the area expected to be mined during the term of the permit. Actual mine cut depths during the term of the permit would be as deep as thirty-seven feet which result in a draw down in the aquifer that is greater than one and on-half feet. Combining the dewatering calculations with the surficial aquifer draw downs resulting from CMI's planned well pumping from the intermediate and Floridian aquifers result in greater than predicted draw downs. CMI's water balance did not account for changes in water needs due to variability of the ore body. WATER QUALITY CMI has not demonstrated that the water quantities requested for the operation of the phosphate mine and beneficiation plant, and land reclamation and water handling will utilize the lowest water quality to the greatest extent practicable. Nevertheless, the Pine Level mine is innovative in comparison to other operating mines. It proposes to reduce its groundwater requirement by increasing the amount of recycled water used in the amine flotation process; employ an innovative sand/clay mixing technique for land reclamation, thus eliminating the need for conventional large, above-ground day settling areas or slime ponds; and use surplus water for irrigation of agricultural crops or pasture. CMI plans to mine the Pine Level Site for a period of 22 years. For phosphate mines, neither DNR, nor SWFWMD analyze impacts with respect to surface water during the mining process. For phosphate mines, no state agency looks at off-site surface water impacts from the standpoint of draw downs, with the possible exception of cities and counties. The District has not required CMI to submit an application for the management and storage of surface waters permit, since the District staff believes that phosphate mines are exempt from obtaining any MSSW permit from the District. A gap exists in the regulatory scheme for phosphate mines with respect to the reduction of surface water flows during the mining process if SWFWMD exempts phosphate mines from obtaining an MSSW permit. INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING LEGAL USERS The City of North Port is an existing legal user of water. The City of North Port has a public water supply facility which draws its water from the Big Slough. The Big Slough normally gets a portion of its flow from high quality water in the surficial aquifer. CMI's proposed Pine Level phosphate mine is located in the watersheds which feed the Big Slough and the Peace River. In the initial years of the mine, virtually all of the collected rainfall will be diverted from the Big Slough watershed. No analysis has been done to see how dewatering might affect the City of North Port. Any significant reduction in flow to the City of North Port's facility during the low flow season will interfere with North Ports existing legal use of water. Diversion of 3.1 mgd of rainfall from the Big Slough will have an adverse impact on the City of North Port's water facility. The City of North Port is currently under a consent agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation because the water supplied by its facility violates drinking water quality standards for sulfates and total dissolved solids ("TDS") regularly during periods of low flow in the Big Slough. The MWSA, the plant area and the initial mining areas are primarily within the Big Slough drainage area. Seepage of 1.2 mgd from the MWSA will flow into the Big Slough. The only analysis done of the quality of the seepage from the MWSA was a rough analysis which showed that sulfates will likely be around 550 grams per liter. The legal standard for sulfates in drinking water is 250 grams per liter. Seepage from the MWSA will be high in total dissolved solids ("TDS") since a good portion of it was pumped from deep wells which have very high levels of TDS. No analysis was done of the potential of this seepage water to interfere with North Port's facility. Charlotte County is an existing legal user of water whose water supply is drawn from the Peace River downstream from the proposed CMI phosphate mine at Pine Level. Discharge of 5.0 mgd from the Pine Level mine could adversely affect Charlotte County's drinking water facility located on the Peace River. AGRICULTURAL USE CMI proposes to use 5.0 MGD of surplus water for irrigation of pasture grasses for cattle. CMI has not conducted any specific tests to determine the feasibility of using the discharge or the quality of the water that they plan to use for agricultural irrigation. The water for irrigation will be drawn out of the mine water surge area. The determination of whether the 5.0 mgd discharge can be used for agricultural irrigation has been postponed. The staff's position is that the proposed special conditions provide reasonable assurances that the discharge will comply with the requirements of the Basis for Review. WETLANDS Isolated wetlands occur throughout the CMI mine site. The isolated wetlands on the CMI property provide habitat for endangered and threatened species. Sandhill Cranes and Wood Storks, both threatened or endangered species, were sighted on the CMI property by wetlands experts during their site visit prior to the hearing. Small isolated wetlands on CMI property would be adversely affected by less than a one foot draw down. Wetland peat soils oxidize if exposed to the air. Oxidation results in subsidence of the wetland soils, which adversely impacts wetlands. Too much water as well as too little water can adversely impact wetlands. The combined effects of aquifer pumping and dewatering planned at the CMI site will adversely affect wetlands. No analysis was completed of the impacts to wetlands as a result of the combined effects of dewatering and pumping from the aquifer. No information regarding the normal range of wetland hydroperiods for preserved wetlands or other onsite unmined wetlands was introduced. No information was provided regarding the habitat functions provided by the wetlands on the CMI site either for threatened or endangered species or otherwise. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the water use will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to environmental features on or off- site. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact to surface water bodies such as lakes, ponds, impoundments, springs, streams, canals, estuaries or other water courses. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse environmental impact to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish, and wildlife or other natural resources. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impacts to the surface water system or vegetation as a result of groundwater withdrawal. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse impact by altering or impairing the habitat of threatened or endangered species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the projected draw downs will not result in any adverse impact to any protected or non-protected plant or animal species. The Applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the water use will not have an adverse environmental impact to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order DENYING the issuance of a Water Use Permit to the Applicant, CMI. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 31, 35, 38, 70, 71, 73, 75, 91, 97, 100, 104, 105, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, and 129. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 37A, 39 40, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106A, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 134. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraphs - 18, 26, 32, 41, 42, 46 (omitted), 47 (omitted), 69, 88 (omitted), 89 (omitted), 90 (omitted), 118 (omitted), 119 (omitted), and 135 (omitted). Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Charlotte County. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 7, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 36, 40, 41, 51, 59, and 62. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, and 61. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs - 43 and 44. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, City of North Port. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24(in part), 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49(in part), 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57(in part), 58, 59, 60, 61, 63(in part), 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86(in part), 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 104, 107, 108(in part), 109(in part), 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143(in part), 144, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 187, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205. Rejected as argument, subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 4(contained in Preliminary Statement), 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24(in part), 33, 43, 44, 46, 49(in part), 55, 57(in part), 62, 63(in part), 64, 76, 77, 81, 82, 86(in part), 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108(in part), 109 (in part), 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 143(in part), 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 174, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent/Petitioner Consolidated Minerals, Inc. and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Accepted in Substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(in part), 23, 24, 25(in part), 26, 27(in part), 28, 29(in part), 32, 33(in part), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52(in part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 57(in part), 58, 62, 71, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 100(in part), 101, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124(in part), 125(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 133(in part), 137, 138(in part), 139, 145. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 12, 13, 15, 16, 31, 36, 37, 38, 48, 51, 52(in part), 57(in part), 59, 60, 63, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 94(in part), 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 124(in part), 126(in part), 127(in part), 130(in part), 134, 135, 136, 138(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragrahs - 22(in part), 25(in part), 27(in part), 29(in part), 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 89, 92(in part), 95(in part), 96(in part), 97(in part), 98, 99, 100(in part), 102, 103, 121, 122, 125(in part), 128, 129, 131, 132, 133(in part), 144. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitoner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4 6, 7, 17, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33(in part), 34, 35, 39(in part) 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 71, 73, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 92(in part), 106, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139(in part), 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165. Rejected as argument, subsumed, or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs - 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32 33(in part), 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92(in part), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 120, 146, 147, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 44, 54, 69, 139(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Roger W. Sims, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Suite 2600 200 S. Orange Avenue P. O. Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vivian Arenas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, Florida 34609 Mr. Alan R. Behrens Route 2, Box 725-A-32 Arcadia, Florida 33821 Matthew G. Minter, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Cr. Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 David M. Levin, Esquire ICARD, MERRILL, CULLIS, TIMM, FUREN & GINSBURG PO Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kenneth B. Wright, Esquire Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund PO Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00493 is for an existing consumptive use permit for five wells located in the Peace River Basin, Polk County on 608.6 acres. The permit seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 14.97 million gallons per day. Ninety-five percent of the water withdrawal will be used for industrial purposes and five percent will be used for irrigation. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the application except that well located at Latitude 28 degrees 03' 13", Longitude 81 degrees 47' 54". That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage quarterly to the district beginning January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be granted in the amounts applied for in Application No. 76-00493 subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Coca Cola Company Post Office Box 247 Auburndale, Florida 33823
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Sarasota County Utilities should be issued a consumptive use permit to draw water from the 14 wells in issue here located in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for themanagement of water resources within its area of geographical jurisdiction. Included therein was the responsibility for the permitting of consumptive water use. The Respondent, Sarasota County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utilities division which is charged with meeting, among other things, the potable water needs of the residents of the County. Petitioners Wyatt S. Bishop and Joan Jones are both residents of Sarasota County and both draw their potable water from wells which utilize the aquifers pertinent to the wells for which the permit in issue here relate. Mr. Bishop lives approximately 7.5 miles north of the Carlton Reserve, the property on which the wells in issue are located, and Ms. Jones lives approximately 7 miles from the Reserve, but in a different direction. Sarasota County filed an application for a consumptive use permit with the District on January 28, 1987 requesting an average daily withdrawal of 10.71 million gallons per day, (mgd), and a peak monthly withdrawal of 15.55 mgd. This application, assigned number 208836.00, was, over the next three years, amended by the County four separate times. These amendments reflected revised water demand determinations and were submitted to provide additional information requested by the District. The District issued a preliminary staff report and proposed intent on March 26, 1991 reflecting an approved withdrawal in the amount of 7.28 mgd average daily withdrawal and 11.1 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. These figures were revised, however, byan amendment by the District on July 8, 1991, and as amended, authorize 7.303 mgd average daily withdrawal and 9.625 mgd peak monthly withdrawal. The County's application was reviewed by an experienced hydrologist in the District office with extensive permit review experience who utilized, in his evaluation of the permit, the pertinent District rules and policies. By way of background, to more easily understand the circumstances here, Sarasota entered into a contract with Manatee County in 1973 which called for the latter to provide up to 10 mgd of water for a period of 40 years, up to and including the year 2013. However, in 1979, Manatee County's utilities director advised Sarasota County that it, Sarasota County, could not continue to rely on Manatee County's water after the expiration of the current contract, and would, therefore, have to become self sufficient in water. Since the MacArthur tract, now known as the Carlton Reserve, had just recently been identified by, inter alia, the United States Geological Service as a potential long term water source for Sarasota County, after Manatee County advised Sarasota County of its future expectations, Sarasota County and the Manasota Basin Board hired a consulting firm to conduct hydrological testing on the Carlton Reserve. This study concluded that the Reserve had sufficient water resources to satisfy the needs of the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County for an extended time into the future. In 1985, because of its increased water needs and thetime necessary to complete required studies on the utilization of the Myakka River, a surface water resource, Sarasota County concluded that it was suffering a water supply shortage and entered into a supplemental contract with Manatee County to provide 2 million gallons of water per day over a 5 year period which would expire in 1990. Sarasota County had not, however, been idle with regard to the investigation of other water resources. Studies done included not only the Myakka River mentioned above but a reservoir owned by the City of Bradenton, and the Peace River. Nonetheless, it was determined that the Carlton Reserve was the best source available overall, and in 1987, the County filed the application in issue here. The permit was under consideration for approximately 3 1/2 years before the initial decision by the District to grant it. During that time the County experienced a significant deficiency in its water sources and found it necessary, on February 5, 1991, to enter into another contract with Manatee County to supply an addition 5 mgd. Terms of that contract clearly indicate the expectations of both parties that Sarasota County will take reasonable steps to develop its own water resources. It is not as though Sarasota County sat quietly in the interim, however, and allowed the situation to develop. A building moratorium to halt additional construction was proposed and as a result, economic forces in the County indicated a potential loss of jobs to County residents. None of this would be desirable from an economicstandpoint. In the course of the permit application process, 12 test wells were sunk to conduct aquifer pump tests; to assess water quality, amounts and availability, aquifer characteristics and drawdown; and to determine the impact of withdrawal on water quality. Eight of these 12 wells are located on the Carlton Reserve. The other 4 are located on property owned by the MacArthur Foundation which is contiguous to the Carlton Reserve property and from which Sarasota has a right by easement to draw water. The 2 wells yet to be constructed will be on Sarasota County property. Sarasota County currently receives 10 mgd of water under its contract with Manatee County; an additional 5 mgd under the February 5, 1991 contract; 2 mgd from the University wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 3 mgd); and .9 mgd from the Sorrento wellfield, (with a peak withdrawal rate of 1.1 mgd). This latter source is only producing currently .6 mgd of potable water due to constraints imposed by the water treatment requirements. Taken together, the current Sarasota County supply constitutes 18.6 mgd. The above does not take into account the County's agreement with the City of Sarasota calling for the purchase of up to 2 mgd. Since this source is not reliable, it is not included in the total, and the City is not considered an available water source. In addition, the District and Sarasota County stipulated on July 15, 1991 that within 30 days, the County would apply tophase out routine water production from the Sorrento wellfield, relying on it only in emergency situations with District consent. For this reason, it, too, is not considered an available water supply source. These currently existing sources, with modifications as described, will be the primary sources of potable water provided to 6 major service areas in Sarasota County when the County's water treatment plant and transmission system are complete in 1993. In attempting to define the County's future water requirements, two major criteria were considered. The first was the County's historical water demand, and the second, modifying it, relates to the demand arising as a result of new water users being added to the system as a result of the County's capital improvements and acquisition program. Water resources are not unlimited. Current resources come primarily from Manatee County and there are constraints on this supply as it is made available to Sarasota County. For example, the 10 mgd contract expires in 2013. The 5 mgd contract expires in 2001. Though the latter is subject to renewal, renewal is contingent upon the availability of water supply at that time, and that is not a sure thing. It can, therefore, readily be seen that 15 out of the 18.6 mgd routinely available now comes from Manatee County, and those sources are not perpetual. In addition, it is conceivable that Manatee County may pre-blend the water it delivers to Sarasota County with water of lesser quality, so that the delivered water may exceed the total dissolved solids standard of 500 ppm for potable water. If thewater from Manatee County were reduced to that quality, the University wellfield supply, which currently exceeds standards itself, and which relies on blending with better quality Manatee County water to be potable, would also be removed as a source of potable water to Sarasota County. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 373.171, Florida Statutes, which requires the District to regulate the use of water by apportionment, limitation, or rotating uses, to obtain the most beneficial use of water resources and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the District analyzed the available water sources and determined that Sarasota County relies upon its 10 mgd supply from Manatee County and the 2 mgd supply from University wellfield to constitute 12 mgd usable water. The 5 mgd from Manatee County would be used only in an emergency situation, and the Sorrento wellfield would be abandoned. Future water demands must be predicted relying in great part upon an historic record of prior water use. Utilizing a statistical procedure called linear regression, a methodology accepted by the District, indicated a water demand figure for the period from 1992 to 1997 based upon six use points extending from 1985 to 1990. These use records reflected a low of 9.733 mgd and a high of 12.808 mgd, the former being in 1985 and the latter in 1990. In addition, the County estimated that its capital improvement program would add between 10 and 12 thousand customers who presently use private wells, whose water use would constitute approximately 2 mgd of additional demand. The County's program toacquire some 42 private franchises now serving customers would add an additional demand of 2 mgd. Taken together, these programs would add in approximately 1.8 mgd per year to the need assessment, and it would therefore appear that by 1997, the County's average daily demand, considering all new users, would be 17.84 mgd. The water to be drawn from the Carlton Reserve is not currently potable and will require some form of treatment to render it so. Sarasota County proposes to use the Electrodialysis Reversal process, (EDR), because, in the County's judgement, it is more efficient than others such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Whereas EDR is rated at up to 85% efficient, the others range between 50% to 75% efficient. In that regard, in order to determine the maximum amount of water to be drawn, providing a safety factor for a treatment plant operation that is not working up to peak capacity in computing the water needs, the EDR process was determined to be no more than 80% efficient. Factoring in that efficiency potential, when the 1997 average daily demand is subtracted from the County's projected water capacity, the withdrawal need in 1997 is determined to be 7.303 mgd. However, as a part of its permitting process, the County also calculated its peak month daily demand. This is a figure which represents the maximum amount permitted to be drawn on a daily basis during the peak demand period. This peak period was determined under Section b 3.2 of the District's Basis of Review by taking the 1989 daily flow and using a sliding 31 day calendar to determine the highest historical 31 day flow. Thisresulted in a peak month coefficient of 6.16 which was then multiplied by the 1997 average daily demand of 17.842 mgd which resulted in a peak month daily demand of 20.7 mgd. When existing water supplies are removed and the 80% EDR treatment process factor is applied, the amount of raw water needed from the wellfield in issue on a peak monthly basis would be 9.625 mgd. This peak monthly basis figure is considered because of the intermittent periods of low rainfall and high water demand within the County. Accepting the 1.8 gpd yearly increase; the peak factor of 1.16; and the assumed water supply capacity of 18.6 mgd; Sarasota County's need will exceed its available supplies by 1993. In fact, the County is already experiencing low water pressure in part of its service area during peak demand periods. County experts estimate that without the requested water from the Carlton Tract, Sarasota County can expect to experience dry periods as early as 1993 during the periods of peak water usage, generally between April and June. For the above reason, when the application and its supporting information was reviewed by Mr. Basso, the District hydrologist with extensive experience reviewing more than 300 water use application, he determined that the water supplies requested are necessary to meet the County's certain reasonable demand, and that this meets the criteria set out in Rule 40D - 2.301(1)(a), F.A.C. Turning to the issue of hydrologic and environmental impacts, the District's Basis For Review of Water Permit Applications provides for the use of a "water use model" inevaluating water needs and the appropriateness of a proposed withdrawal. In preparing its submittal to the District, Sarasota County performed certain tests and modeling to derive the statistical and scientific information used in support of its application. Specifically it used the USGS' MODFLOW model utilizing information obtained from the pump tests run on the wells in the pertinent areas. Consistent with the District's rule, the water data and aquifer drawdown were determined by simulated pumping. The tests run also provided the information on water quality in the aquifer and physical characteristics including transmissivity, storage coefficient, specific yield and leakance between aquifers. This data also helped in defining the hydrogeologic framework of the Carlton Reserve. The Carlton Reserve's hydrogeology listed in descending order from the surface, includes a surficial aquifer which varies in depth between 19 and 70 feet across the Reserve; a semi-confining clay unit separating it from the intermediate aquifer; the upper intermediate and lower intermediate aquifer which range in depth from 140 to 180 feet across the Reserve; another confining layer, and the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers. The hydrology and groundwater modeling expert who constructed the model used in Sarasota County's permit application concluded that the water table drawdown at the Reserve property boundary in the surficial aquifer would be less than .3 of a foot; less than .4 of a foot in the intermediate aquifer; and 2.9 feet in the Upper Florida aquifer. The water to be drawn consistentwith this instant permit, if approved, would come from the Upper Floridan aquifer on the Reserve. The County's experts were conservative in the assumptions used in the groundwater model. It was assumed there would be no lateral water flow into the model area and no recharge. In addition, the model called for all pumps to run simultaneously at a maximum drawdown of 12.65 mgd for 90 days rather than at the requested quantity of 9.625 mgd. Utilization of these assumptions provided a scenario wherein "severe" impacts would be encountered. Based on the testing and the modeling done, expert opinion was that there would be no quantity or quality changes that would adversely effect water resources including ground and surface water. This meets the criteria of Rule 40D-2.301. This opinion was concurred in the District's hydrology expert. Nonetheless, in its proposed approval, the District has imposed special permitting conditions which require the County to monitor, analyze, and report water quality and water table level information to the District on a monthly and annual basis. When it evaluates the information supplied by an applicant relating to ground water monitoring, the District is required to consider certain presumptions set forth in its Basis For Review. For example, the District presumes that if there is a drawdown of more than 1 foot in the surficial aquifer at a wetland, adverse environmental impacts will occur. In the instant case, the County model concluded that the actual drawdown in the surficial aquifer at the Carlton Reserve is less than .6 of onefoot and, therefore, there should be no adverse environmental impact resulting from the withdrawal. Nonetheless, the County has developed several plans designed to provide information on environmental impacts which will continuously monitor such parameters as rainfall and evaporation, wetlands hydroperiod changes and vegetative changes in the wetlands to detect any changes which might be attributed to the water pumping. These plans have been made special conditions to the water use permit, and in the opinion of the County's ecology and hydrology expert, would enable the County to adequately monitor and detect any pertinent changes to the pertinent factors concerned on the Carlton Reserve. If wetland changes are detected, a contingency plan will be in effect which will require an alteration of pumping schedules or other action to minimize any adverse impacts. The District expert in wetlands and wildlife habitat has opined that these measures, with which he is familiar, are adequate to insure that adverse impacts to the wetlands will not occur. This is consistent with the provisions of Rule 40D-2.301(1). As was stated previously, the water to be drawn pursuant to this permit will be drawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This water is not potable but is treatable and is the lowest quality water which can be economically used by the County. Water of a lower quality does exist in the Lower Florida aquifer, but it is not economically treatable, and, in addition, use of this Lower Floridan aquifer might cause vertical movement of the poorer quality water into the upper strata. For all practical purposes,then, the lowest quality water available to it will be used by the County and this is consistent with the District's basis for review. Expert testimony indicates that saline water will not be infused into the Upper Floridan aquifer. Salt water intrusion generally occurs when groundwater is brought to a level below sea level. Even at the point of maximum actual drawdown as a result of pumping on the Reserve, the fresh water level will remain at least 20 feet above sea level, and as a result of the difference in water level, no saline water intrusion into the fresh water supply will occur even though salt water intrusion can also occur as a result of upward vertical movement of lower quality water due to withdrawal. The District's hydrologist and reviewing official also concluded that because of the confining layer below the aquifer from which water will be withdrawn, there would not be any significant upward movement of lesser quality water. The District's basis of review also envisions an aquifer pollution if a proposed withdrawal would spread an identified contamination plume. Here no contamination has been identified in the area from which the water will be drawn, and therefore, contamination would not be spread. The Basis for Review also infers there will be adverse impact to off site land if there is a significant drawdown of surface water bodies or if damage to crops or other vegetation can be expected. Here, the water table drawdown at the boundary of the Carlton Reserve is anticipated at less than .3 of one foot and any drawdown further out from the Reserve can be expected tobe even less. As a result, no adverse impact to existing off site land useage is expected. With regard to Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), relating to an adverse impact on existing legal uses, the District presumes that no adverse impact will exist if the drawdown in the water table is no more than 2 feet at an affected well, or the potentiometric surface at the well is not lowered by more than 5 feet. Here, again applying the County's groundwater modeling demonstrates that the drawdown at its worst, in the Upper Floridan aquifer, would be no more than 2.9 feet at the Reserve boundary and much less at the Petitioners' wells. Both Mr Bishop's and Ms. Jones' wells are approximately 7.5 and 7 miles, respectively, from the closest well on the Reserve property. Ms. Jones' well is drilled into the intermediate aquifer which is above that which the County proposes to use and should not be impacted. Mr. Bishop draws water from the intermediate and surficial aquifers, both of which are above the Upper Florida aquifer identified for use here, and the groundwater modeling would suggest that his well would not be impacted either. Sarasota County's application contains reference to numerous proposals for water conservation measures which it intends to implement or has already implemented. It has adopted ordinances to enforce the District's watering restrictions and is currently implementing a block inverted use rate structure to promote conservation. It has developed programs for use in the schools outlining water conservation efforts and is developing programs topromote the increased use of treated waste water for golf course irrigation. The requirement for a water conservation plan such as is described and envisioned by the County is a condition of the water use permit proposed, and in addition, the County has adopted an Ordinance, (90-38) which modifies its building code to require installation of water conservation devices in new buildings erected in the County. It has developed proposals for conservation measures such as water auditing, meter testing, leak detection, system looping, and pressure reduction, and has selected the EDR process of water purification as the most efficient use of groundwater resources. Petitioner, Bishop, testified to his belief that approval of this permit and the resultant water withdrawal on the Carlton Reserve would necessitate an expansion of the boundaries of the District's Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area to a point where his property would be encompassed therein. In support of his position, Mr. Bishop offered a notice to the effect that new ground water withdrawals would not be permitted within a certain "most impacted area" within the caution area. There was, however, no independent evidence from hydrologists, geologists, or other conservationists, or individuals familiar with the water conservation process, to support Mr. Bishop's contention that either the boundaries would be expanded or that withdrawal of the proposed permitted amounts of water from the Carlton Reserve would cause the boundaries to be expanded. By the same token, Mr. Bishop's contention that theproposed withdrawal from the wells here in issue would adversely effect his ability to draw water from his existing well was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence tending to support or confirm his contention. He had no evidence tending to contradict the County's and District's experts, all of whom indicated there would be no adverse impact on the environment or water resources as a result of the instant permit. Similarly, neither Petitioner offered any evidence of a demonstrative nature that would draw any connection between the proposed permitted withdrawals and potential salt water intrusion and water level drawdown in their wells. The County introduced construction permits issued by its own health department covering 8 of the 12 wells which have been drilled on the Carlton Reserve as test wells. These wells were clearly sunk pursuant to an agreement between the District and the County's public health unit which delegates authority for water well construction permitting to the County. Taken together the documentation indicates that these 12 wells on the Reserve were installed and permitted pursuant to and consistent with appropriate permitting processes, and the testimony of Mr. Bassarab, the County's expert who oversaw the installation of the wells, reflects they are appropriately grouted and sealed. Therefore, there will be no mixing of lower quality water from the lower portion of the Floridan aquifer with the better quality water from the upper portion of that aquifer. The County's evidence clearly refutes the allegation by Mr. Bishop that the 12 test wells currently existingon the Carlton Reserve were neither permitted nor inspected as required by the District. County Commissioner Hill, who testified on behalf of the Petitioners, indicated that the wells applied for here are unnecessary and an inappropriate expenditure of County funds. She claimed there are other valid sources of water available to the County, including that extracted from excavated shell pits and seawater from the Gulf of Mexico which could be treated and desalinated. The Commissioner's comments as to alternate sources are not specifically rebutted. However, she is neither an expert in hydrology or hydrogeology, and her testimony is not persuasive. While other water sources may exist, the better evidence clearly indicates that those sources are not sufficient to meet the County's needs or are otherwise inappropriate for use by the County in sufficient quantity to satisfy those needs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that consumptive water use permit No. 208836.00, providing for authorized quantities as outlined in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein, be issued to Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 5th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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. FOR THE PETITIONERS: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 8. Resolved against the Petitioners on the basis information presented by Respondents. 9.- 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 23. Accepted. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted. & 27. Noted as citation of authority. Rejected. & 30. Accepted as restatements of evidence but not as Findings of Fact. 31. Irrelevant. 32. Rejected 33. & 34. Not a error is, in fact, it is such. 35. - 38. Irrelevant. 39. - 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45. Rejected. 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. & 48. Rejected as a mere citation of testimony. 49. Not understandable. Not a Finding of Fact. 50. Accepted. 51. Evidence is acceptable. 52. Not sufficiently specific to rule upon. 53. Not proven. 54. Not specific. 55. & 56. Rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein, - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted - not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. Not correct as stated. Sarasota County will not be withdrawing saline water from the upper Floridan aquifer. The remaining discussion is accepted. Accepted and utilized. & 54. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60. Accepted. 61 - 63. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 66. Not Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr. 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Joan Jones 719 East Baffin Road Venice, Florida 34293 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman, Herb, Causey & Dooley 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34237 Cathy Sellers, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis 215 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue The issues are whether the proposed amendment to Rule 40E- 2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, exceeds the agency's grant of rulemaking authority; enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific law implemented; or is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency discretion, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Osceola Fish Farmers Association, Inc. (OFFA), is a non-profit corporation whose members consist of tropical fish farmers in Osceola County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that OFFA has standing to bring this action. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District or Respondent), is a public corporation operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Among other things, the District has the authority to regulate the uses of water within its geographic boundaries, including Osceola County. On an undisclosed date, the District began test drawdowns (a lowering of the elevation of the water through control structures) in the Alligator Chain of Lakes just east of St. Cloud in Osceola County, where OFFA's members are engaged in tropical fish farming. The drawdowns were undertaken for the purpose of allowing the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to conduct demucking activities in the lakes to enhance aquatic habitat. Prior to beginning work, the FFWCC obtained an Environmental Resource Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). However, the District did not require either itself or the FFWCC to obtain a consumptive use permit on the theory that a lake drawdown for demucking activities was not a consumptive use and therefore did not require a permit. In an effort to halt future scheduled drawdowns, OFFA participated in a United States Army Corps of Engineers proceeding which culminated in the preparation of an Economic Impact Statement for FFWCC's drawdowns; filed a complaint with DEP under Section 373.219(2), Florida Statutes, alleging that an unlawful consumptive use (without a permit) was taking place (which complaint was found to be insufficient); filed an action for injunctive relief in circuit court under Section 403.412, Florida Statutes (which was dismissed or dropped for undisclosed reasons); and finally initiated a proceeding against the District under Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, alleging that the District had adopted "an incipient non-rule policy of exempting lake 'drawdowns' from water use permitting requirements" (DOAH Case No. 00-3615RU). To avoid the consequences of an adverse ruling in the latter action, the District began rulemaking proceedings to adopt an amendment to Rule 40E-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, to codify its policy relative to lake drawdowns. As amended, the rule reads as follows: Unless expressly exempt by law or District rule, a water use permit must be obtained from the District prior to any use or withdrawal of water. The drawdown of lakes for environmental, recreational, or flood control purposes is not regulated by Chapter 40E-2 or 40E-20, F.A.C. (Underscored language represents amended language). Petitioner has challenged only the amendment, and not the existing rule. The effect of the rule is obvious - a lake drawdown for one of the three stated purposes in the rule will not require a permit, while all other lake drawdowns will. As specific authority for the proposed amendment, the District cites Sections 373.044 and 373.113, Florida Statutes. The former statute authorizes the District to "adopt rules pursuant to [Chapter 120] to implement the provisions of this chapter," while the latter statute authorizes it to "adopt rules pursuant to [Chapter 120] to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it." The District has cited Sections 373.103(1), 373.219, and 373.244, Florida Statutes, as the specific laws being implemented. The first statute provides that if specifically authorized by DEP, the District has the authority to "administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter, including the permit systems established in parts II, III, and IV of [Chapter 373], consistent with the water implementation rule"; the second statute provides in relevant part that the District may "require such permits for consumptive use of water and may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that such use is consistent with the overall objectives of the district or department and is not harmful to the water resources of the area"; and the third statute provides for the issuance of temporary permits while a permit application is pending. In regulating the uses of water within its boundaries, the District administers a comprehensive consumptive water use permit program under Part II, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Both parties agree that under Section 373.219(1), Florida Statutes (2000), all "consumptive uses" of water require a permit, except for the "domestic consumption of water by individual users," which use is specifically exempted by the same statute. The global requirement for permits is also found in Rule 40E-2.041 (the rule being amended), as well as Rule 40E- 1.602(1), which provides in relevant part that unless expressly exempted by statute or rule, "[a] water use individual or general permit pursuant to Chapters 40E-2 or 40E-20, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to use or withdrawal of water " The term "consumptive uses" is not defined by statute, but the District has promulgated a rule defining that term. By Rule 40E-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, the District has adopted by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications with the South Florida Water Management District." Section 1.8 of that document contains definitions of various terms used in the permitting program, including "consumptive use," which is defined as "[a]ny use of water which reduces the supply from which it is withdrawn or diverted." The District's policy for lake drawdowns, as proposed in the rule amendment, is inconsistent with this definition. On this disputed issue, Petitioner's evidence is accepted as being the most persuasive, and it is found that a lake drawdown for any purpose is a consumptive use of water. Section 373.219(1), cited as a specific law being implemented, provides that the District "may require such permits for consumptive use of water and may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure such use is consistent with the overall objectives of the district and department and is not harmful to the water resources of the area." The District construes this language as authorizing it to decide which uses of water are a "consumptive use," and which are not, and to implement a rule which codifies those decisions relative to lake drawdowns. Not surprisingly, Petitioner views the statute in a different manner and argues that the statute simply allows the District to create a permit program that is consistent with Chapter 373; that under the law a permit is required for all consumptive uses, including lake drawdowns; and that the District has no authority to carve out an exception for a lake drawdown from the permitting process, no matter what the purpose. As noted above, the District has identified three instances (for environmental, recreational, and flood control purposes) when a lake drawdown does not require a consumptive use permit. These terms are not so vague that a person of common intelligence would have difficulty understanding them. However, the proposed rule contains no prescribed standards to guide the District in its administration of the rule.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Cargill, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida which owned and operated a phosphate mine near Fort Meade, located in Polk County Florida. Petitioner, Gloria Elder, owns residential property adjoining the Fort Meade Mine on which she maintains an individual water well for domestic and other purposes. The Respondent, District, has the responsibility for regulating the consumption and conservation of ground and surface water within its jurisdictional limits, including the well in question. For a period prior to December, 1990, Cargill had been operating under consumptive use permit No. 202297.04, issued by the District, which provided for average daily withdrawals of 12.0 MGD from wells on its property. In addition to the 12.0 MGD, Cargill also was utilizing an additional 3.3 MGD for mine pit and surficial aquifer dewatering activities which did not have to be reflected in the permit but which were lawful uses. In December, 1990, Cargill submitted its application to renew the existing water use permit with a modification including the 3.3 MGD previously being used but not officially permitted. No additional water would be drawn from the permitted wells as the newly applied for 15.3 MGD was the total of the 12 MGD and 3.3 MGD previously permitted and lawfully used. After reviewing the additional information requested of Cargill pertaining to this application, the District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action for approval of the permit. The proposed permit authorizes withdrawal of the amount requested in the application, 15.3 MGD, the exact same amount actually withdrawn under the prior permit. As a part of the proposed permit the District imposed two special conditions. These conditions, 12 and 13, require Cargill to conduct its dewatering activities no closer than 1,500 feet to any property boundary, wetlands, or water body that will not be mined or, in the alternative, to mitigate pursuant to conditions 12 and 13 any activities conducted within the 1,500 foot setback. There are no reasonable alternatives to Cargill's request. The mining process in use here utilizes a water wash of gravel-size phosphate ore particles out of accompanying sand and clay. The water used for this purpose is recycled and returned to the washer for reuse. The resulting phosphate ore mix, matrix, is transported with water in slurry form to the refining plant. This system in the standard for phosphate mining in the United States. Once at the plant, the slurry is passed through an amine flotation process where the sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water with a constant Ph balance and temperature which can be retrieved only from deep wells. Even though the permit applied for here calls for an average daily withdrawal of 15.3 MGD, typically the Cargill operation requires about 10.08 MGD from deep wells. This is a relatively standard figure within the industry. Approximately 92 percent of the water used at the site in issue is recycled. However, recycled water is not an acceptable substitute for deep well water because it contains matters which interfere with the ability of the chemical reagents utilized in the process to react with the phosphate rock. Therefore, the quantity sought is necessary and will support a reasonable, complete mining operation at the site. The Cargill operation is accompanied by a strenuous reclamation operation. Land previously mined near the Petitioner's property has been reclaimed, contoured, re-grassed and re-vegetated. This project was completed in 1990. No evidence was introduced showing that Cargill's operation had any adverse effect on the Elders' well. Water samples were taken from that well at the Petitioner's request in May, 1991 in conjunction with the investigation into a previous, unrelated complaint. These samples were submitted to an independent laboratory for analysis which clearly demonstrated that the minerals and other compounds in the water from the Petitioner's well were in amounts well below the detection level for each. Only the iron level appeared elevated, and this might be the result of deterioration of the 18 year old black iron pipe casing in the well. Another possible explanation is the fact that iron is a common compound in that part of the state. In any case, the installation of a water softener would remove the iron, and there is no indication the water would have any unacceptable ecological or environmental impacts in the area either on or off the site. No other residents in the area have complained of water quality problems. Petitioner claims not only that Cargill's operation would demean her water quality but also that its withdrawal will cause a draw down in the water level in her well. This second matter was tested by the District using the McDonald-Haurbaugh MODFLOW model which is well recognized and accepted within the groundwater community. The model was applied to the surficial, intermediate, and upper Floridan aquifers and indicated the draw down at the property boundary would be less than one foot in the surficial aquifer and less than four feet in the intermediate aquifer. The model also showed the draw down at the Petitioner's well would be less than three feet, which is well within the five foot criteria for issuance of a consumptive use permit under the appropriate District rules. This evidence was not contradicted by any evidence of record by Petitioner. All indications are that the water use proposed is both reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that WUP Permit No. 202297.05 be renewed as modified to reflect approval of 15.3 MGD average daily withdrawal. Jurisdiction will remain with the Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of evaluating the propriety of an assessment of attorney's fees and costs against the Petitioner and the amount thereof. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph N. Baron, Esquire 3375-A U.S. Highway 98 South Lakeland, Florida 33803 Rory C. Ryan, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2600 Post office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32801 Martin D. Hernandez, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, should be issued water use permit 204387.03, to withdraw groundwater from the wells on its property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for the permitting of consumptive water use within its area of geographical jurisdiction. The Respondent, Hi Hat, is a family owned farming and ranching operation in eastern Sarasota County with water wells on its property. The Intervenor, City of Sarasota, is a municipality in Sarasota County which operates wells in the general area of those operated by Hi Hat, and which has an agreement with Hi Hat for the latter's use of treated wastewater pumped from the city's treatment plant to Hi Hat Ranch. The Petitioner, Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr., is a property owner and resident of Sarasota County whose property is located near the Hi Hat Ranch, and whose potable water is drawn from a well on his property which utilizes both the surficial and intermediate aquifers which are penetrated by the wells on Hi Hat Ranch. Hi Hat Ranch consists of 11,000 acres owned by Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, the family owned business which operates it, and an additional 3,227 acres leased from the City of Sarasota. Agricultural operations, including citrus farming, truck farming, sod farming, and grazing have been conducted on the ranch since the mid 1940's. In February, 1990, Hi Hat applied to the District for a permit to withdraw and use water from some 14 wells located on its property. It requested an annual average of 6,267,000 gallons per day, (gpd), and a peak monthly rate of 32, 668,000 gpd. Upon receipt by the District, the application was assigned a number, (204387.03), and was submitted for evaluation by the District staff for conformity with applicable District rules and policies. When the staff evaluation was completed, the District issued a staff report and proposed staff agency action in which it indicated its intention to issue a permit authorizing water to be drawn from the wells at a rate of 6,570,000 gpd, average annual, a peak monthly rate of 14,300,000 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 5,210,000 gpd. In conducting its evaluation, the District staff relied upon the District's Basis of Review For Water Use Permit Applications which contains within it the provision for use of a "water use model" in assessing the need and appropriateness of water withdrawal amounts. This model, known as the Blaney- Criddle Model considers numerous factors in the evaluation, including rainfall, soil characteristics, irrigation methods used, and proposed crop types, all in an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of the applicant's supplemental water needs. Hi Hat's application was evaluated primarily by Marie Jackson, a Hydrologist III employed by the District, and an expert in hydrology, who has, over the years, reviewed between 350 and 400 permit applications, of which approximately 90 percent have been for agriculture. She is, therefore, quite familiar with the specifics of agricultural water use needs. Her evaluation of Hi Hat's application was done in the same manner as the others she has done and utilized the same tests, measurements and factors for consideration in arriving at her conclusion. In its application, a renewal with modification sought to increase average annual quantities due to a change in crop plans, Hi Hat indicated that its criteria for water use was based on certain agricultural uses and application rates. These included: low volume under tree spray irrigation of 778 acres of citrus at an application rate of 17.2 inches/year plus one inch/year for frost and freeze protection. open ditch irrigation of 135 acres of sod at an application rate of 30 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 1,367 acres of improved pasture at an average application rate of 26.6 inches/year. overhead spray irrigation of 1,200 acres of improved pasture at an application rate of 20.3 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of spring peppers at an application rate of 30.0 inches/crop, and open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of fall peppers at an application rate of 45.2 inches/crop. Applicant also stipulated that the peak monthly quantities that it requested would be utilized for pasture, sod and citrus irrigation during the month of May. The proposed maximum quantities were for frost and freeze protection of citrus only. In January, 1989, Hi Hat entered into a contract with the City of Sarasota under which the City was obligated to deliver reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment plant to a "header" located on the ranch which thereafter distributes the water through pipes to "turnouts" located at various high points on the property. From these, the water is then discharged into a system of ridges and furrows for distribution of the water across the needed area. The reclaimed water is used to irrigate approximately 5,403 acres of ranchland. The Contract provides for minimum and maximum amounts of water to be delivered as well as for water quality standards which must be met. In periods of adequate rainfall, when irrigation is not required, any treated wastewater which is not needed is stored in a 185 million gallon holding pond on City property located adjacent to the ranch. When needed, water can be fed into the wastewater distribution system described above from the holding pond. This reclaimed water, whether from the pond or direct from the header, can also be utilized to irrigate citrus crops, but this requires a filter system which has not yet been able to operate properly. Therefore, no reclaimed water has yet to be utilized for citrus irrigation on the ranch. At an average annual flow of 6.2 million gallons per day, the pond has the capacity to hold enough treated water for almost 30 days. Not all wells on Hi Hat Ranch are active wells. Several of the wells are classified as standby wells which are intended to be used only to back up the reclaimed water delivery system and are located, normally, beside the "turnouts." In the event the reclaimed water is not available from the city, the standby wells can be utilized to provide water to the ridge and furrow system used to irrigate pasture land. The standby wells are numbers 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Well number 5, also identified as a standby well in the staff report and in the draft permit was mistakenly so identified. The draft permit contains several special conditions which impact on the drawing of water under the terms of the permit. Significant among these is Special Condition 33 which prohibits the withdrawal of water from any of the standby wells unless the reclaimed water supply from the city is interrupted. Special Condition 27 requires the installation of a flow meter on any standby well that becomes active as a result of permanent discontinuance of the reclaimed water supply. With regard to flow meters, Special Condition 22 requires flow meters on all of Hi Hat's wells. Ms. Jackson, however, indicated this was in error and has recommended that the standby wells be deleted from that Special Condition. When that is done, only those wells actively producing water on a regular basis would require the installation of flow meters. In its analysis of the application for permit, the District staff considered several factors pertinent to the impact the well would have on the water supply in the area and its effect on other users. These factors include hydrologic impacts, well condition, the history of water use at the ranch, the reliability of the reclaimed water system and its ability to provide a uniform source, and the city's water reuse policy. Addressing each individually, and starting with the hydrologic impact of the withdrawal of the requested amounts, the District considered the nature of the existing wells and how they are constructed and maintained. The District assumed, because the data regarding the construction of the existing wells was incomplete and insufficient to properly disclose the status of casing on each well, that they were shallow cased. As a result, the calculations incorporating this assumption indicate a situation that would occur in its most aggravated form. The parties agreed that Hi Hat's wells are shallow cased and probably go no deeper than 90 feet. To determine, as much as possible, the projected drawdowns in the surficial and intermediate aquifers that might be expected if Hi Hat withdrew the amounts of water proposed, the District utilized the "MODFLOW" computer model which factors in simultaneous peak withdrawals from all 14 of the wells along with a 90 day no rainfall drought condition. This, too, contributes to a worst case scenario, and the resultant figures are considered to be conservative estimates of the hydrologic impact of the water withdrawal. Notwithstanding, the application of this computer model resulted in the indication that, as to the surficial aquifer, the drawdown at Mr. Bishop's property located approximately one half mile from the ranch border, would be no more than .055 feet. Since normal fluctuations in the surficial aquifer during the course of the year can be as much as 6 feet, the projected drawdown as a result of Hi Hat's withdrawals was considered insignificant. Applying the same assumptions and utilizing the same computer model as it relates to the intermediate aquifer resulted in an indication of a drawdown of no more than 2.3 feet at Mr. Bishop's property. Since annual fluctuation in the intermediate aquifer can range from 15 to 20 feet normally, the District considers that any reduction of less than five feet in the intermediate aquifer is insignificant. The permit held by Hi hat currently allows for the withdrawal of more water than would be withdrawn under the proposed permit as conditioned and is consistent with the proposed reduction in allowable withdrawals. Considering that factor, as well as the prohibition against withdrawals from standby wells as long as reclaimed water is available, the actual impact of the water withdrawals consistent with the proposed permit would be substantially less than the computed prediction which includes production from all wells. Drawdown contours are defined across the entire effected area. One of the levels is a 4 foot contour, and when a computer simulation indicates that the 4 foot contour includes a withdrawal previously or otherwise permitted, the District will generally conduct a cumulative impact analysis. In this case, however, since there was only one golf course well within the area circumscribed by the 4 foot contour line, and since this withdrawal was too small to have effected an evaluation, it was not done. The condition of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch has some bearing on whether or not the application for additional withdrawal of water should be granted. These wells are almost 30 years old, having been drilled in the 1960's. As a result, there is little information available regarding their construction detail. This is not necessarily unusual for agricultural wells, and there is evidence that there are many similar wells in use within the District. The reason for this is that at the time the wells were drilled, information regarding their depth, casing and other matters were not required to be kept or reported. However, there is no indication the wells are in any way violative of well construction criteria and their use has been authorized continuously since 1977. When he prepared Hi Hat's application, Mr. Turner included much the same information regarding the wells as pertains as to depth and diameter which he had previously submitted in earlier applications and which had been accepted. In each case, casing depths had been reported as unknown. Notwithstanding the information contained in some old well logs relative to only a few of Hi Hat's wells, this information is in no way definitive and it is difficult to describe anything specific with the majority of these wells. Nonetheless, as already found, it is stipulated that most are approximately 90 feet deep. It is reasonable to assume that the existing wells, however, are cased only to a shallow depth, and that in many cases, the existing casings have corroded away, either totally or in part. This can cause an intermixing of water from the separate aquifers, but whether this is in fact happening depends upon factors specific to that particular well. Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that as a result of the condition of Hi Hat's wells, any degradation is occurring in the more potable, surficial aquifer as a result of intermixing with water from the intermediate aquifer on or around the Hi Hat Ranch. In Ms. Jackson's opinion, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict it, the amount of drawdown which would occur as a result of maximum pumping at Hi Hat Ranch would not be sufficient to cause poorer quality water from the Floridan aquifer to percolate upward (upcone) into the better quality water of the two upper aquifers even during drought conditions. By the same token, there is no evidence that drawdown would encourage or permit salt water intrusion. Petitioner attempted to show by the records kept on the various Hi Hat wells that many of them have been abandoned and are no longer operative and should not be allowed to fall within the parameters of this permit. He testified clearly that over the years, the level of water in his potable water well has lowered and presumed that this was the result of increased water usage by other entities which draw from the aquifer into which his well is sunk. Water level, however, depends upon numerous factors, of which usage is only one. Others include recharging of the aquifer and the amount of rainfall and other recharge sources not only in the immediate area but across the large area which feeds the aquifer. Mr. Bishop did not present any evidence showing a causal connection between the lowering of the water in his well, or the degradation in water quality he claims to have experienced, and either the drawdown caused by Hi Hat's operation or by aquifer intermixing. He indicated, and it is not disputed, that within the past year, he has had to take measures to improve the water quality in his potable well, but, again, he has not presented any evidence to show this was caused by Hi Hat's ground water withdrawals. In its long range planning, the District intends to implement a program to rehabilitate old wells, and when that program is implemented, almost every agricultural well within the District may require recasing or redrilling. This program will not be implemented for several years, however. In an effort, however, to insure that all reasonable precautions are taken to see that approval of any petition for withdrawal does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water needs of the surrounding community, in its analysis of this application, and in all cases, the District makes certain assumptions when adequate empirical data is not available. In this case, pertaining to the unavailability of information regarding Hi Hat's wells, the District assumed that all wells were shallow cased, and this placed the application in the worst possible light. Shallow cased wells allow more upconing and aquifer intermixing. Nonetheless, the amount of water permitted to Hi Hat, even if not used, could impact on Mr. Bishop and other adjoining owner's use of additional water as a result of a possible change to their permitted quantities. However, to compensate for this, the District has also included a special condition, (#26), which requires Hi Hat to log all 14 of its wells within the term of the permit, (7 years), which will require at least 2 wells be done each year. The cost of that action will be between $800 and $2500 per well. Another condition, (#31), requires Hi Hat to look into any complaint from adjacent property owners regarding adverse impacts due to water withdrawal, to report the results of its inquiry to the District, and to mitigate, as much as possible, all adverse impacts due to its withdrawal. Mr. Bishop claimed, and introduced evidence purporting to demonstrate, that many of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch, which are covered by the permit applied for here, are no longer in use and have been abandoned. In response, Mr. Turner, who has been actively engaged in the ranch's operations for at least the past four years, indicates from his personal knowledge, that all 14 wells included in the permit applied for have been operated within the past two years, and all are capable of producing water. It is so found. Not all wells, however, have been operated at all times. Crop rotation and a varying need for groundwater has resulted in some wells not being used at some times. This is, of course, commonplace in agriculture and to be expected as a result of crop planning programs. Admittedly, an accurate figure for the amount of water which has been withdrawn from the 14 wells cannot be established because these wells do not have, and were not required to have, flow meters. Two of the wells were fitted with hour meters in January, 1989, but because the capacity of the pumps on those wells is variable, a precise estimate of volume pumped cannot be determined. The meters measured only the number of hours the pumps were in operation and not the amount of water passed through the pumps. Evidence was presented, however, to show that wells have been utilized at the ranch since the 1960's, and in 1977, some 14 years ago, following District implementation of a consumptive water use permit program, the ranch first applied for water withdrawal permits. These permits have been renewed as required and all water usage since the implementation of the program has been permitted. Turning to the reclaimed water supply, the delivery system, incorporating a program to pump reclaimed water from the treatment plant all the way back out to the ranch site, is subject to material failure and operator error, and either one can occur at any number of places along the system route. Each could result in interruption of the delivery of the reclaimed water to the ranch. The system is far more complex than would be the use of on-site wells for delivery of ground water. One two week shutdown in the system was occasioned by a major pipe failure as a result of pressure building up in the pipes. Were it not for the fact that a contractor was already at the ranch with replacement parts on hand to effect expeditious repair of the system, the shutdown could have lasted considerably longer than it did. This is not the only interruption, however. Several main line leaks and valve problems have caused the system to be shut down on several occasions for short periods of time. The filter system required for the water destined for the citrus area is problematical, and so far this area of the ranch has not received any reclaimed water in the 10 months the system has been in operation. Mr. Bishop argues that the wet weather holding pond is a solution to the reliability problems with the pipe line, but the pond has had problems of its own. Sand in the water, which comes from the holding pond, has been the primary difficulty in the filter system for the citrus area, and algae growth in that pond has the potential to create other filter problems. Delivery of the water from the pond is not accomplished by a gravity system, but instead, requires the use of pumps powered by an electric motor. In the event of a power failure, this source would be unavailable. Discounting all of the above, however, and assuming, arguendo, that all systems were in top operating condition, the fact remains that the delivery system from the pond to the distribution system is not adequate to supply the amount of water that would be necessary to have an effective freeze protection program. In any case, the reclaimed water supply is not the panacea for all water shortage problems experienced at Hi Hat Ranch. In the first place, the quality of the reclaimed water is generally lower than that of the groundwater which would come from wells on the ranch. Also, the City's treatment process does not remove from the water all the pollutants that are of concern to the farm operators. For one thing, total dissolved solids in the reclaimed water are considerably higher than in the ground water, and high dissolved solid levels can be harmful to citrus crops. In fact, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommends that citrus irrigation water not exceed total dissolved solid ranges of from 1000 to 1500 milligrams per liter, (mpl). Testing done on the reclaimed water delivered to Hi Hat Ranch showed it averaged between 1200 and 1500 mpl. Though within recommended parameters, it was toward the high end. Further, reclaimed water is not totally interchangeable with ground water for all agricultural purposes. It cannot, by law, be applied to certain types of ground crops such as melons, nor can it be used for overhead citrus irrigation. There is also a restriction on the use of reclaimed water for pastures on which dairy cattle will be grazed. This all results in a restriction on the options available to the farmer who chooses to use reclaimed water in his irrigation plan. As a result, many farmers try not to use reclaimed water if they have access to adequate amounts of groundwater from on- site wells. Notwithstanding all the above, the parties agree that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposed is in the public interest. The District encourages it but nonetheless concedes that even with the availability of reclaimed water, a farmer should have access to wells on his property, in a standby capacity, as an alternative source of water to support his farming activities. Not only that, the agreement between the City and Hi Hat provides for Hi Hat to maintain its water use permit even while receiving reclaimed water from the City. Hi Hat is not the only farm operation with whom the City has negotiated in a effort to expand its wastewater distribution program. It has found in those negotiations, that most farm producers are not willing to rely totally on reclaimed water for all their irrigation needs, and it has concluded that were it mandatory that a farmer give up his on-site ground water withdrawals in order to utilize reclaimed water for a part of his needs, most would be reluctant to use it at all. This would seriously interfere with the City's ability to dispose of its surplus reclaimed water consistent with its policy. Even though Hi Hat's property lies within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Cautionary Area, the rule pertaining thereto is inapplicable to Hi Hat because Hi Hat filed its application for permit, which was deemed complete, prior to the adoption of the rule. Nonetheless, water use officials agree that the proposed permit is consistent with the rule emphasis on the use and reuse of reclaimed water, and the District does not object to backup wells being permitted as supportive of the District's desire to keep ground water within the ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Hi Hat Cattle and Grove be issued water use permit No. 204387.03, within the limits of the authorized quantities as indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein; except that the permit be amended to show well No. 5 as a non-standby well, and to delete standby wells from the terms and requirements of Special Condition 22. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 17th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. She testified that Condition 28 of the permit provides this. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 36. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence except that the method permitted was the method being used. - 40. Accepted. Ms. Jackson indicated she "assumed" some wells were drilled into the Florida aquifer. Rejected. Accepted as qualified by the comment, "depending on the respective potentiometric heads." - 47. Accepted. Accepted but incomplete. This is because they did not feel it was necessary under the circumstances. - 51. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Redundant. - 61. Accepted. - 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. More a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein. & 71. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 74. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second portion rejected since cited case involves active wells versus standby, as here. The comparison made is accepted. The conclusion drawn as to validity is rejected. & 79. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, & 45. Accepted. 46. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Bram D.E. Canter, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara B. Levin, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should be subject to civil penalties and required to submit a Compliance Plan for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and Order filed on January 8, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this enforcement action, Petitioner, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to assess civil penalties against, and require a compliance plan from, Respondents, Balm Associates, Inc. (Balm) and Goodson Farms, Inc. (Goodson), on the grounds that from March 1999 through July 2001 they made water withdrawals from certain property in Hillsborough County, Florida, without a water use permit, and after a permit was obtained in August 2001, they continued to exceed the annual average daily withdrawals authorized under the permit through the month of November 2001, or just prior to the preparation and issuance of the Administrative Complaint and Order (Complaint).1 While not denying that excessive pumpages may have occurred, and that a permit was not obtained until August 2001, Balm points out that it is the owner-lessor of the property and not the consumptive user of the water, and contends that the District has no authority to enforce its rules against, and recover civil penalties from, the non-user of the water. In its request for a hearing, Goodson did not specifically dispute the allegation that it consumed water without a permit, or exceeded the withdrawal limits under the new permit, but contended instead that the limits were unrealistic and should be modified. At the final hearing, however, Goodson disputed the accuracy of the water consumption figures used in the Complaint. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Balm is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is 2101 Huntington Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. It owns approximately 220 acres of land in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 21 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, which is the site of the alleged wrongdoing. Goodson is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 246, Balm, Florida 33503. Goodson is in the farming business and operates a total of 13 farms, including the farm at issue in this proceeding. Permit Requirements Under Rule 40D-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit is required whenever total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); annual average withdrawal from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd; or withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at the surface. Rule 40D-2.351(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a permittee must notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted water withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located. The same rule also provides that where a permit has been issued to a party whose ownership or legal control of the permitted water withdrawal facilities subsequently ends, the party who assumes control over the facilities may apply to transfer the permit to himself or herself up to the renewal date of the transferor's permit. Finally, Rule 40D-2.351(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that until a permit is transferred or a new permit is obtained, the party subsequently controlling the permitted water withdrawal facilities will be in violation of District rules for making withdrawals without the required permit. History of Permits on the Property On September 29, 1989, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 207135.001 (the .001 permit) to James Brown (Brown) and B & T Growers Partnership (B & T) for water withdrawals from one well for agricultural purposes on Balm's property. The .001 permit authorized annual average withdrawals of 102,000 gpd of groundwater for agricultural irrigation. On August 29, 1990, the District adopted new rules applicable to District permits within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA). The .001 permit was within the ETBWUCA, and Brown and B & T were provided with a Notice of Permit Modification and new Permit Conditions. The new conditions became effective November 15, 1990. New Condition No. 5 provided that By July 31, 1995, all permitted withdrawal points shall be equipped with totalizing flow meters or other measuring devices as approved in writing by the Director, Resource Regulation Department. Such devices shall have and maintain accuracy within five percent of the actual flow installed. On December 14, 1992, the District approved the transfer of the .001 permit from Brown and B & T to B. Kenda Produce. The Unpermitted Water Withdrawals On June 30, 1997, Goodson entered into a two-year agricultural lease with Balm to use a portion of the property, including acreage previously used by B. Kendra Produce. At the time the lease was entered into, neither Respondent applied to the District to have the .001 permit transferred from B. Kendra Produce. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that after the first lease expired, the parties continued to execute new lease agreements at least through the time of the hearing. The portion of the property which Goodson leased and farmed is referred to as the "Sweat Loop Farm" and consists of approximately 100 acres. There is one well with an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface located on the Sweat Loop Farm. The well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), which is over 1,000,000 gpd. Thus, withdrawals from the well required a water use permit. As noted earlier, Goodson operates a total of 13 farms on approximately 2,500 acres of land. There are approximately 15 wells on all 13 farms, including the Sweat Loop Farm. Michael E. Hare, an irrigation supervisor who is responsible for the irrigation of all 13 of Goodson's farms, installed a total of approximately 8 meters on the farms, including the meter on the Sweat Loop Farm. A totalizing flow meter, which was made by MiCrometer, was installed at the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Mr. Hare acknowledged that he was familiar with MiCrometer meters and would be aware if the MiCrometer flow meter on the Sweat Loop Farm was not functioning properly. Whenever metering devices on the various Goodson farms have malfunctioned in the past, Mr. Hare has taken the malfunctioning meter to a metering company to be fixed. Goodson began irrigating the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Since that time, Goodson has been the sole water user of the well on the farm. In March 1999, Goodson began submitting to the District monthly pumpage reports for the groundwater withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm. Although some unmeasured withdrawals presumably occurred prior to March 1999, the Complaint does not identify these as being a violation. Mr. Hare and other supervisors are responsible for collecting the meter readings which go on the monthly pumpage reports and providing them to the District. The information on the reports includes the permit number; the last month's meter reading; the current month's meter reading; the total gallons of water pumped for the current month; the meter total; and the meter factor. To determine the average daily withdrawal on the Sweat Loop Farm, the District relied upon the calculations provided by Goodson as to the total gallons of water pumped for the month and divided this number by 30 days. From March 1999 through July 2001, these quantities were as follows: MONTH/YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE March 1999 April 1999 531,487 No data available May 1999 364,930 June 1999 0 July 1999 0 August 1999 57,410 September 1999 49,563 October 1999 222,667 November 1999 250,667 December 1999 755,003 January 2000 689,433 February 2000 695,073 March 2000 544,427 April 2000 305,153 May 2000 597,720 June 2000 0 July 2000 62,120 August 2000 86,370 September 2000 123,233 October 2000 602,020 November 2000 409,550 December 2000 145,823 January 2001 957,690 February 2001 890,213 March 2001 391,280 April 2001 467,640 May 2001 617,177 June 2001 0 July 2001 0 Under Rule 40D-2.041(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit was required for Goodson's withdrawals since the well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gpm, which is greater than 1,000,000 gpd; the annual average withdrawals exceeded 100,000 gpd; and the well has an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface. The withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm were not authorized by the .001 permit since neither Goodson or Balm was a permittee under the permit. Even if Goodson could rely on the permit, which it cannot, pumpage data provided by Goodson reflects that the water withdrawals (except for nine months) were in excess of that authorized by the permit. On June 16, 2000, the District mailed a Notice of Non-Compliance for excessive water withdrawals to Goodson. The Notice indicated that if the pumpage values submitted by Goodson were incorrect, Goodson was to explain the error and provide corrected quantities. On June 26, 2000, the District received a written response to the Notice of Non-Compliance from the superintendent of the Sweat Loop Farm who indicated that the pumpage values were correct, and that the excess usage was due to a "serious drought condition" which had caused a "significant financial hardship on [the] farm." The response also indicated that Goodson would contact Mr. Haftel, owner of Balm, to request that he "revise the water use permit for spring crops." On November 22, 2000, the District mailed Goodson a Notice of Violation indicating that the quantities authorized by the .001 permit were still being exceeded and that the District might seek monetary penalties if Goodson failed to come into compliance within 30 days. Despite the foregoing Notice, Goodson continued to make withdrawals without a permit and in excess of the quantities formerly authorized under the .001 permit until August 2001 when a new permit was finally obtained. Issuance of a New Water Use Permit On January 2, 2001, the District received an application for a General Water Use Permit seeking to modify the .001 permit to increase the withdrawal quantities and to transfer the permit from B. Kendra Produce to Balm. "Seymour Haftel/ Balm Associates, Inc." was listed as the applicant, and "Donn Goodson" from " Goodson Farms" was listed as the contact or consultant. Mr. Haftel signed the application on behalf of Balm. Goodson assisted Balm in securing the permit for the Sweat Loop Farm because Goodson wanted more water for irrigation purposes. Section 2.1 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application, adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40D-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]pplications for leased property, except property leased from the District, must be either a joint application in the name of the lessee and the property owner(s) or be only in the name of the property owner(s)." In a Request for Additional Information mailed to Balm on January 29, 2001, the District asked whether Goodson should be listed as co-applicant on the application. On April 27, 2001, Balm submitted a response which indicated that Goodson should not be listed as co-applicant. On August 6, 2001, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 200007135.002 (the .002 permit) to Seymour Haftel/Balm Associates, Inc. authorizing an increase in the annual average withdrawals to 224,300 gpd. The permit had an expiration date of September 29, 2009. The permit contained a number of special conditions, none of which were challenged by Balm. Unauthorized Withdrawals Under the .002 Permit Special Condition No. 2 of the .002 permit requires in part that the permittee: continue to maintain and operate the existing non-resettable, totalizing flow meter(s), or other flow measuring device(s) as approved by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation, for District ID No(s), Permittee ID No(s)[,] G-1. Such device(s) shall maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total withdrawal and meter readings from each metered withdrawal shall be recorded on a monthly basis and reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department, (using District forms) on or before the tenth day of the following month. In the event a permittee chooses not to use a totalizing flow meter, as required by Special Condition No. 2, the District will review information provided by the measuring device's manufacturer to determine if the measuring device would maintain a five percent accuracy as required by the Condition. The meters have to be monitored and calibrated periodically for accuracy. It is the permittee's responsibility to comply with the conditions of the permit, including Special Condition No. 2, which requires the submittal of accurate pumpage reports. Goodson submitted the meter readings on behalf of Balm beginning in September 2001, which covered the withdrawals for the month of August 2001. The District relied on the meter readings submitted by Goodson to determine the annual average daily pumpage calculation for the .002 permit. The calculation is a running 12-month average, whereby each month the annual average daily quantity is recalculated based on the previous 12-month pumpage. The running annual average daily pumpage and percentage of pumpage which exceeded the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002 are as follows: MONTH/YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE PERCENTAGE OVERPUMPED August 2001 378,462 69 percent September 2001 382,622 71 percent October 2001 376,687 68 percent November 2001 383,008 71 percent December 2001 379,212 69 percent January 2002 327,343 46 percent February 2002 321,530 43 percent March 2002 350,701 56 percent April 2002 356,013 59 percent May 2002 338,131 51 percent As the foregoing data reflects, the withdrawals from the Sweat Loop Farm were in excess of that authorized by the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Respondents are guilty of the charges in its Administrative Complaint and Order except as concluded in paragraph 48 above and endnote 2 below; that Respondents be required to submit an acceptable written plan (Compliance Plan) to the District for its consideration and approval within fourteen days after entry of the final order; that the Compliance Plan describe how Respondents shall achieve full compliance with the .002 permit; that the Compliance Plan include reductions in withdrawals, water conservation measures, and development and utilization of alternative resources; that the Compliance Plan establish deadlines for implementation and completion of corrective actions; that full compliance be achieved within 120 days after entry of the final order; and that any failure of Respondents to comply with any provision of the Compliance Plan shall constitute a violation of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 75-00196 is a request by the Standard Sand and Silica Company, for a consumptive water use permit. This application is for an existing use involving withdrawal from one well. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 1.6925 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 2.16 million gallons per day. The sought-for withdrawal will not exceed the water crop as defined by the district, with the withdrawal consumptively using only 35 percent of the water crop. The water will be used on site for the washing of sand. Mr. Clifton W. Golden is an adjacent landowner who testified that he was afraid of salt water intrusion and that a sink hole might develop because of the vast quantities of water taken from the aquifer by the applicant. He does not feel that the issuance of a permit would be consistent with the public interest. He presented no hydrological data showing that issuance of the permit would adversely affect his property. Mary Fausteen Thompson is a property owner adjacent to the site from which the water will be taken. She has had problems in the past with Standard Sand and Silica Company apparently discharging excess water on to her property. She thinks those problems may be occurring again, causing some of her property to be flooded. The sought-for consumptive use will not significantly induce salt water intrusion. Except as otherwise noted in the findings of fact, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. Several letters of objections have been received in addition to the objectors noted above. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That no off-site runoff be permitted by the applicant. That flowmeters be placed on the well and quarterly reports made to the district.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 75-00196 be granted with the conditions set forth in paragraph 7 above. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Eugene W. Harris Standard Sand and Silica Co. P.O. Box 35 Davenport, Florida 33837 Mrs. Mary Fausteen Thompson Box 82-C, Evans Road Polk City, Florida Mr. Clifton W. Golden 800 Oriole Drive Virginia Beach, Florida 23451 Mr. John C. Jones Executive Director Florida Wildlife Federation 4080 North Haverhill Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
