Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) was formed in 1974 by inter-local agreement under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a supply entity to provide and develop sources of water for its members and other governmental entities. The members of WCRWSA include the two cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa and the three counties of Pinellas (intervenor herein), Hillsborough and Pasco. The petitioner and the intervenor own and operate permitted well fields which are regulated by the respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and are therefore subject to the rules and regulations of SWFWMD. All parties have stipulated, and the evidence so demonstrates, that the WCRWSA and Pinellas County are substantially affected by the challenged proposed rule and therefore have standing to challenge its validity. The proposed rule being challenged in this proceeding was considered by the Governing Board of SWFWMD as a result of a prior rule being declared invalid in another proceeding. The prior rule, codified as Rule 16J-2.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: 16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be assumed to be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.) By Final Order dated April 9, 1980, 1/ that rule was declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the grounds that it exceeded SWFWMD's statutory authority under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it impermissibly conflicted with provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it created property rights to water by virtue of land ownership contrary to Chapter 373 and the decision in the case of Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d and 663 (Fla. 1979); and it was a hydrologically unsound method of determining the issuance or denial of consumptive use permits and was accordingly arbitrary and capricious in nature. The two subsections of proposed Rule 40D-2.301 being challenged in this proceeding read as follows: "40D-2.301. Conditions for Issuance of Permits. Among other factors to be considered by the Board in determining whether a particular use is consistent with the public interest will be: the maximum amount to be withdrawn of a single day; the average amount to be withdrawn during a single week, during a typical growing (or irrigation) season, during an extreme cold season, during a year of extreme drought an during the term of the proposed permit; the amount to be withdrawn in relationship to amounts being withdrawn from adjacent or nearby properties; the proximity of withdrawal points to location of points of withdrawal by others; the total amounts presently permitted from the entire basin, or other hydrologic unit; and the change in storage that such withdrawal and use will cause. If the proposed consumptive use will average less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board will presume that the quantity of water proposed for consumptive use is consistent with the public interest and the applicant will not be required to submit further evidence on this point. If the proposed consumptive use is to average 1,000 gallons or more per acre per day, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water in such quantity is consistent with the public interest. (NOTE: Present subsections 6 through 11 will be renumbered consecutively following the above new subsections.) The factors listed in subsection (6) of the proposed rule are not all- inclusive. Each of the factors listed are resource related or hydrological considerations. The effect of each of the factors listed is appropriate for consideration by the Governing Board of SEFWMD when making a determination as to whether a consumptive use permit should be granted. With the exception of that portion of subsection (6) relating to a weekly average amount to be withdrawn, the factors listed in subsection (6) are covered by existing specific rules of SWFWMD. The word "acre" in the phrase "1,000 gallons per acre per day" is intended to mean land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The figure of 1,000 gallons per acre per day represents the average quantity of water which is available within the respondent's District for man's use and to maintain natural systems. The figure is a district wide estimation. It cannot be arbitrarily applied to any specific site within the District due to the fact that different parcels of land do not possess identical geologic or hydrologic characteristics. The amount of water which is available from a specific parcel of land is dependent upon geographical and hydrological factors which vary considerably from site to site. These factors include, among other things, the amount of rainfall the land receives, the water table, the existence of confining layers, soil and vegetation types, and transmissivity, storage and leakage coefficients. Withdrawals of water in small amounts per acre per day are generally less likely to have adverse hydrologic effects on the water resources within the District than are withdrawals in greater amounts. In most areas of the District, 1,000 gallons per acre per day can be withdrawn without jeopardizing or adversely affecting the resource or the availability of water for others. This would not necessarily be true of coastal areas where salt water intrusion is a possibility or in areas where wells presently exist which withdraw large quantities of water on a daily basis. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the more than 6,000 consumptive use permits which have been issued by the SWFWMD are for amounts less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day.
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed construction of a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting to the southwest side of Lake Hancock in Polk County, Florida, is exempt from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a request by the District for authorization to construct a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting the southwest side of the Lake in Polk County, Florida (County). After reviewing the request, and based on its determination that the project would "have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the State," on September 27, 2002, the Department concluded that the project qualified for an exemption from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. The Department also authorized the District to use state-owned submerged lands, if applicable, for the construction of the project, and it found that the project was in compliance with the SPGP program and thus required no further permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). Even if the Department had not considered the project to be exempt, it concluded that it had sufficient information and assurances from the District to grant a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing the requested activity. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner, Bruce Lahey, who has resided and owned property on the southwest side of the Lake for 15 years and regularly uses the Lake for fishing and recreational purposes, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) challenging the proposed agency action. In his Petition, as later clarified and narrowed in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Lahey contends that a weed barrier is no longer necessary since there has not been a weed problem in the Lake since late 2002; that the placement of a weed barrier will make access to and from the Lake more difficult and create a safety hazard; and that in the event a problem arises again, the more desirable options for removing the weeds are "a 'cookie-cutter,' mechanical harvester, or the spraying of [the] tussocks," rather than erecting a barrier. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that as a matter of law, Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, bars the construction of a barrier. He has not challenged the Department's authorization for the District to use state-owned submerged lands or its determination that the project complies with the SPGP program, and therefore those aspects of the proposed agency action are not in issue. Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Lahey has standing to bring this action. The Lake and Control Structure The Lake is an approximately 4,500-acre Class III waterbody located east of Highway 98 and Highland City, southeast of Lakeland, and just northeast of the City of Bartow (Bartow). It receives drainage from a significant portion of the County, including three streams and runoff from a surrounding 131-square mile watershed. Waters discharge from the Lake to Saddle Creek (the canal), which exits at the southwest end of the Lake and runs in a southerly direction for around a mile and a half until it merges with the Peace Creek, where the two then become the Peace River. At the confluence of the canal and Peace Creek, the waters flow through a broad, flat floodplain. Water moves slowly through this area, which can affect the ability of the Lake to discharge, especially during flood conditions. Like the Lake and canal, the Peace Creek also has a significant contributing basin. The canal contains a District-owned and operated water control structure known as Water Control Structure P-11 (the control structure) consisting of two twenty-foot radial arm gates that are raised when necessary to manage the water levels on the Lake and prevent the flooding of lakefront property. The control structure is approximately 3,000 feet or so south of the Lake and is the only control structure regulating water levels for the Lake. The gates are designed to discharge at a flow level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The invert elevation of the control structure is 91.7 feet and the crest elevation is 98.7 feet. Flows from the Lake will exceed 1,100 cfs when the water levels are higher than the crest elevation of the structure. At this point, water flows over the structure’s weirs and flood control is no longer provided. The maximum desirable water elevation level for the Lake is 98.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). Typically, the District begins to operate, or open, the control structure when the Lake's water elevation reaches 98.25 feet msl. A water level of 99.0 feet msl is considered minimum flood level (or high guidance level). The low management water elevation (low guidance level) is 96.0 feet msl. These established water levels have been maintained at the Lake since approximately 1981. The District seeks to hold the water level of the Lake close to the maximum desirable level, and typically tries to hold the water level at 98.25 feet msl, which is slightly below the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl, to allow storage of water and some response time. The control structure is intended primarily to be a water conservation structure that regulates the Lake's water levels to benefit the water resources, to include the Lake and the Peace River. In managing the Lake's levels, the District balances conservation of the water resource and public safety/flooding concerns. The Lake's water level elevations are monitored through the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA), which measures the water level and transmits hourly data to the District offices via satellite. SCADA monitors are located immediately upstream and downstream of the control structure. Since the tussock blockage events in the summer and fall of 2002, described more fully below, the District has installed an additional SCADA monitor on the north end of the Lake so that water levels in the Lake and canal can be compared. The Lake does not have direct public access or a public boat ramp and is not easily accessible. In addition, in the canal, there is only one unimproved location upstream from the control structure where boats can be placed in the water and gain access to the Lake. That portion of the canal which lies between the Lake and the control structure has not always been open to boat access. In the 1980’s, a floating weed barrier extended across the canal approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the current control structure, which blocked the canal and boat access. This floating weed barrier was installed primarily to address problems with water hyacinths that would float down the canal and interfere with the control structure. This floating barrier gave way sometime in the 1990’s. An earlier control structure also used to exist in this area, which blocked canal access. Navigation of the canal is limited due to the existence of the control structure and a number of other blockages further downstream, including a low bridge where old Highway 17 crosses the canal. Thus, boats coming from the Lake cannot navigate down the canal any further than the control structure, or slightly more than one-half mile, without taking the boat out of the water. Between 1999 and 2001, the District experienced one of the most severe droughts on record. During this time, the Lake went dry except for some isolated pools of water. Because of these conditions, a significant amount of wetland or aquatic vegetation began to grow on the exposed bottom of the Lake. The Lake historically did not support much plant growth, due to its eutrophic condition, poor water quality, and gelatinous mucky lake bottom. The types of vegetation currently existing in the Lake include cattails, pickerelweed, duck potato, and primrose willow. Following the return of summer rains and El Nino conditions in 2002, the Lake rebounded to within normal water levels. Because of the return of water in the Lake, the buoyant pressure of the water combined with the flaccid nature of the mucky lake bottom caused significant portions of vegetation to become uprooted, which formed an extensive amount of tussocks. Tussocks are floating mats of uprooted aquatic vegetation. They contain plant and organic material accumulated around the plant roots, can range from a few feet across to one hundred feet across or larger, and can reach a height of more than four feet. Once tussocks form, they move about the Lake by wind and water currents. The amount of vegetation currently existing in the Lake exceeds historic levels. At the present time, the District estimates that approximately 2,000 acres of the Lake are covered with tussocks, and that due to the flaccid nature of the lake bottom, the tussocks are susceptible to becoming uprooted through fluctuating water levels, wind, and wave action. Therefore, there is a strong potential that much of the currently rooted vegetation will form tussocks. Tussocks first impacted the District’s ability to operate the control structure in July 2002. During this event, the canal became partially filled with tussocks. Because the blockage occurred during the rainy and hurricane seasons, the District undertook efforts to clear the canal of tussocks. District staff used mechanical equipment commonly called a cookie cutter to break up the tussocks and flush them downstream through the control structure. During this tussock event, the Lake's water levels rose briefly above the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl and then fell back to within normal elevations. In late August 2002, approximately three weeks after the first tussock blockage event, a number of homeowners on the Lake, including Petitioner's wife, contacted District staff to advise that the water level of the Lake was rising and flooding their yards. A rise in water levels did not register on the District’s water level monitoring SCADA system. Visual observation of the Lake did reveal, however, that there was a significant difference between the water levels being experienced on the Lake and the water levels reported at the control structure via the SCADA system. During this tussock event, masses of tussocks had completely filled the 3,000-foot length of the canal all the way to the control structure and were jamming against the control structure gates. Tussocks had also formed a vegetation dam approximately 900 to 1,400 feet north of the control structure where they compacted and became lodged on the bottom of the canal, significantly impeding the flow of water. During this event, flows out of the Lake were significantly diminished to a fraction of what they should have been. The tussock dam caused the Lake's level to rise above the minimum flood elevation of 99.0 feet and flood Petitioner's yard. There was an approximately one to one and one-half foot difference in the water levels in the Lake and in the canal. In response to this disparity, the District installed a third water level elevation monitor at the northern end of the Lake, so that it can monitor any differences in water elevations between the Lake and the canal and be alerted in the event that a blockage occurs in the canal. To eliminate the tussock blockage and restore flow through the control structure, the District had to employ mechanical means to break up and remove the tussocks. At the control structure, a trac-hoe was initially used in an attempt to force tussocks through the control structure, as tussocks would not flow through the structure unassisted. A cookie cutter was also employed, but it became sucked into the control structure and was damaged and had to be removed with a crane and repaired. The cookie cutter proved ineffectual in addressing the tussock blockage problem. If the canal were to again become clogged with tussocks, any resulting blockage of flow from the Lake would cause water levels to rise, which would endanger public safety and welfare. Prior to the tussock blockages experienced in the summer and fall of 2002, problems with tussocks had never been experienced at the Lake. The magnitude of the tussock formation on the Lake is unique and has not been experienced elsewhere in the District. In 2002, the Department expended over $46,000.00 in contracting for mechanical equipment and for spraying herbicide on tussocks to respond to the tussock buildup on the Lake. Since their formation after the summer of 2002, tussocks have blocked Petitioner's access to his dock on several occasions, thereby preventing him from being able to take his boat out into the Lake or to return to the dock once out on the Lake. The potential for similar blockages to occur remains, regardless of whether a floating weed barrier is erected as proposed. The direction of the winds is a major factor in determining where and how many tussocks will stack up in front of anyone’s property along the Lake. Access to the canal could become blocked with tussocks at any time, depending upon how the wind blows. Breaking up tussock blockages and flushing tussocks through the control structure does not eliminate water resource problems for the District. Tussocks that are pushed through the control structure cause downstream problems requiring the District to expend resources to push the tussocks through and under low downstream bridges crossing the canal, as well as break up tussock blockages that form in downstream waters. In January 2003, tussocks again accumulated at the control structure in such volume as to require assistance in flushing through the control structure. As a result of the large volume of tussocks pushed through the control structure, a tussock blockage occurred at a downstream bridge crossing, for which the District had to use mechanical equipment to restore flow. During March 2003, tussocks flushed through the control structure created a jam downstream on the Peace River. The tussocks were jammed up in a bend in the river and were blocking navigational access to the river. An El Nino weather cycle is currently being experienced. Water levels, including the Lake's water level, are already at their maximum and the ground is saturated. Localized flooding events have occurred. A very active summer rainy season is anticipated, which will mean significant flood control operations for the District. As the summer season approaches, the District must keep the control structure open and operational, which requires that the canal be kept open and flowing. A floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal would keep tussocks from clogging the canal and prevent problems affecting operation of the control structure, downstream tussock blockages, and possible flooding. The Project To address the problem of tussocks entering the canal and causing blockages or possible flooding, on September 11, 2002, the District applied to the Department for a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, to authorize the construction of a floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal. On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its notice of intent to authorize the requested activity. The proposed barrier will be constructed in two sections arranged at approximately 90-degree angles to each other, with a twenty-foot opening between the sections to allow boat access to the canal. A schematic drawing of the barriers is found in District Exhibit 5 received in evidence. As originally proposed, the barrier would consist of a total of sixteen nine-inch diameter pilings driven twenty-one feet apart, with twenty-foot sections of floating foam-filled polyvinyl chloride pipe (pvc) connected to the pilings. Pilings will be marked with reflective tape and five of the pilings will have three-foot diamond-shaped reflective danger signs reading "DANGER PILE/FLOAT BARRIER" placed on their upstream and downstream sides. The pilings are twenty-five feet in length and will extend above the Lake's water level approximately twelve to fourteen feet. Since the District's submittal of the application and the Department's authorization notice, the District has located commercially manufactured floating booms, called "Tuffbooms," that, if authorized, will be installed in lieu of the foam-filled pvc pipes. Use of these booms reduces the number of pilings needed from sixteen to eight, and their bright orange color is more visible than pvc piping. All other aspects of the proposed activity remain the same. The change in material to be used in the construction of the proposed floating barrier does not present any water quality issues, nor does it affect the Department's determination that the proposed activity will have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources. The staggered layout of the proposed floating weed barrier is intended to keep tussocks in the Lake, where they can remain subject to the winds, while providing boat access to the canal in such a manner that is more difficult for tussocks to enter the canal. The Department's Exemption Process The Department's Tampa District Office routinely approves around 800 projects each year under various exemptions authorized by statute or rule. One type of exemption is found in Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, referred to as the de minimus exemption, which allows the Department to exempt from regulation those activities that are determined will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. The Department is authorized to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether an activity qualifies for a de minimus exemption from permitting, the Department looks for parallels to other specific statutory or rule exemptions and analyzes the proposed activity similarly in terms of its scope, construction methods, potential to create water quality impacts or impediments to navigation, and other factors, because these recognized exemptions are also deemed to have minimal or insignificant impacts to the water resources. There is no specific exemption for a floating weed barrier as proposed by the District, but the Department considers this type of project to be similar in scope and potential impacts to other specific activities that have been determined to have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts to the water resources, such as docks and other piling-supported structures, navigational aids, and buoy systems. In assessing whether a project is appropriate for the de minimus exemption, the Department also looks to the criteria for Noticed General ERPs for guidance in determining whether a proposed project will have minimal or insignificant adverse individual or cumulative impacts upon the water resources. Under Section 373.406(5), Florida Statutes, the Department may by rule establish general permits for activities that have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. Chapter 62-341, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Noticed General ERPs established by the Department. Department Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code (as does District Rule 40D-400.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code), allows noticed general permits for piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters. To qualify for a noticed general permit for such activity, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed structure: Does not significantly impede navigation and does not entail the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat when navigational access to the structure does not currently exist; Does not cause a violation of state water quality standards; Does not impede the conveyance of a stream, river or other watercourse in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; Does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; Does not cause the drainage of wetlands; and Is not located in, on or over a coral community, macro-marine algae or submerged grassbed community. Will the Project Impact Water Resources? The District’s proposed floating weed barrier will involve less than 7.1 square feet of impact to the water resources, which is significantly less impact in square footage to the water resources than is allowed by Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, or occurs with other specified exempt projects. Best management practices will be used in the erection of the pilings and in the construction of the barriers. Pilings will be jetted into the lake bottom without need for any dredging or lake bottom removal. Installation of a floating weed barrier will not result in any significant detriment to existing conditions in the Lake or the canal. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will benefit the public interest and the water resources by allowing unimpeded operation of the control structure without risk of tussocks causing blockages and flooding. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will not have significant adverse impacts on fishing, boating, or recreational use of the Lake or canal. A blockage of the canal entrance by tussocks, or a tussock jam anywhere on the Lake, could occur under present conditions, and similar blockages have already occurred. The potential for tussocks to block the opening between the sections of the floating weed barrier is considered remote and of temporary duration, due to the potential for shifting winds. The District’s proposed floating weed barrier is a reasonable means of addressing the continuing potential for tussocks to interfere with operation of the control structure. Use of mechanical equipment such as a cookie cutter or harvester would not be an effective or economical means of addressing tussock blockages in the canal or preventing their occurrence and possible interference with operation of the control structure. Pushing tussocks through the control structure would not be an effective means of addressing the potential for tussocks to cause blockages and possible flooding. Merely pushing the material through the control structure moves the potential blockage problem downstream and does not alleviate the potential for tussocks to cause adverse impacts to the water resources of the District. Spraying tussocks with herbicides would not be an effective means of addressing tussock blockages due to the fact that, once treated, tussocks can take weeks to die and fall to the lake bottom. Floating tussocks are and will continue to be treated with herbicide sprays when found in the Lake to reduce the amount of tussocks. However, once tussocks enter the canal, spraying serves little benefit in preventing tussocks from causing blockages or other problems. Tussocks originate in the Lake and not in the canal. Tussocks in the Lake have had and likely will continue to have an impact on boating and recreational use of the Lake and canal, as evidenced by tussock blockages to Petitioner's dock. By confining the tussocks to the Lake, the potential for tussocks to impact boating and recreational use of the Lake will remain the same as current conditions, but the potential for tussocks to affect operation of the control structure and contribute to Lake flooding will be eliminated. Petitioner contends that the proposed floating weed barrier will impede navigation, either by itself or as a result of tussocks piling up in front of the barrier. The proposed barrier will be marked and visible through reflective tape and signage. The barrier does not create a navigational hazard and is not a significant impediment to access to the canal. Constructed in two sections, the barrier provides an opening that allows boat access to the canal. As noted above, the likelihood of tussocks piling up at the barrier and blocking the opening between the barrier sections is considered remote and temporary. Based upon the information provided by the District, the proposed floating weed barrier will not significantly impede navigation; will not cause a violation of state water quality standards; will not impede the conveyance of a stream, river, or other water course in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; will not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; and will not cause the drainage of wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed activity is located in, on, or over a coral community, macro-marine algae, or submerged grassbed community or that it entails the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat for which navigational access does not currently exist. The proposed activity would have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. As an activity that has minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources of the District, either individually or cumulatively, the District’s project qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, as well as a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's exemption determination authorized the District’s floating weed barrier for one year, presumably so that the effectiveness of the barriers can be evaluated during that period of time. If they are effective, an extension or renewal of the authorization will be sought. If the tussocks problem becomes less acute, or the barriers do not achieve the desired purpose, they will be taken down. In contrast, Noticed General ERPs authorize a particular activity for five years. Other Contentions by Petitioner Petitioner has also contended that the proposed activity may violate a condition of the District's Corps of Engineers general permit by interfering with general navigation. As found earlier, however, the more credible evidence indicates otherwise. Moreover, it is presumed that this issue was considered by the Corps of Engineers prior to its approval of the project. In any event, that matter should be raised with the Corps of Engineers, and not with the Department. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that since at least late 2002, the Lake has been free of a tussocks problem and therefore barriers are no longer needed. As noted above, however, blockages have occurred at the control structure and in the Peace River as recently as January and March 2003, and such blockages were the direct result of tussocks which originated in the Lake. Given the likelihood of a very active summer rainy season, it is essential that the canal be kept open so that the District can properly manage and control the water resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that the Southwest Florida Water Management District's proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes; that authorization to use state-owned lands be given; and that the project is in compliance with the State Programmatic General Permit program. DONE AND ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2003, 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 _____ day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bruce Lahey 5280 Waterwood Drive Bartow, Florida 33830-9766 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Marina"), is a corporation. Marina is the applicant for the permit which is at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility for, among other things, wetland resource permitting. The Department also has responsibility, pursuant to an agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Management District"), for Management and Storage of Surface Water permitting within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Water Management District. Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Save the Manatee"), is a non-profit, Florida corporation. The stated purpose of Save the Manatee includes protection of the manatee and its habitat through the promotion of public awareness, research and lobbying efforts. Petitioner, Friends of the Greenway (hereinafter referred to as "Friends"), is an organization which promotes responsible environmental policy in Citrus County. Save the Manatee and Friends are "citizens" of the State of Florida. They filed a verified petition for hearing in this matter. They alleged in the petition that the proposed facility will injure, harm, or otherwise pollute the state's natural resources. Members of Petitioners observe, study and enjoy manatee in Citrus County, including waters that would be impacted by the proposed facility. Marina's Permit Applications, the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue and the Petitioners' Challenge. On March 28, 1995, Marina applied to the Department for a permit for Management and Storage of Surface Water. On March 10, 1993, Marina applied to the Department for a wetland resources (dredge and fill) permit. The permits sought by Marina are associated with Marina's plan to construct a marina facility. The marina is to be constructed within an existing dolomite mine pit (hereinafter referred to as the "Mine Pit"). On or about February 6, 1996, the Department entered a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by Marina. A copy of the draft permit, permit number 092278259 and MS092681199, was attached to the notice of intent to issue. On or about March 13, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's proposed decision to issue the draft permit. Marina's Proposed Facility. Marina's proposed facility is to be located in Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County is located on the west coast of Florida, north of Tampa, Florida, and south of the mouth of the Suwannee River on the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the proposed facility, Marina proposed to construct 256 wet slips (122 of which may be covered) on six floating docks, a boat ramp, a boat lift bay, a 63-boat dry storage facility, a convenience store with fueling and sewage pump-out facilities, a clubhouse, a stormwater facility and a parking area. The proposed facilities will also include a potable water system. The water system will provide drinking water to the clubhouse, bait stand, fueling facility, boat storage area and the marina docks. The proposed facilities will also include an on-site wastewater treatment facility. The treatment facility will consists of an aerobic system with on-site effluent disposal through drainfield lines into the soil. No sewage treatment percolation ponds will be included on the proposed site. The stormwater system for the proposed site will be separate from the wastewater treatment facility. The stormwater system will include the collection and treatment of stormwater in on-site basins prior to discharge into the Mine Pit. The system will be designed to retain the entire rainfall from a 100-year storm combined with wet detention and on-line systems involving percolation. All these systems have been designed to meet the design standards required by Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code. The post development runoff discharge rate for the proposed site is projected to be less than the current rate of runoff discharge on the proposed site. The proposed facility will not cause any increased flood risks on-site or off-site. No part of the surface water management system will be located within 100 feet of any public supply well. The fish cleaning stations included for the proposed facility will be located over land. Waste associated with fish cleaning will be collected for disposal. Wastewater from the stations will be directed into the wastewater treatment system for the proposed facility. Wastewater from boats at the proposed facility will directed to the wastewater treatment facility through two pumpout stations located near the proposed fueling facility. Solid waste from the proposed facility and boats utilizing it will be disposed of in trash receptacles located throughout the proposed site. They will ultimately be picked up by a solid waste hauler for disposal. Erosion around the Mine Pit will be controlled through the placement of 2,200 feet of rip rap, vegetation planting and other erosion control techniques. The Mine Pit where the proposed marina is to be constructed is located on the south side of the Cross Florida Greenway Waterway (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Waterway") (formerly known as the "Cross Florida Barge Canal"), approximately one half mile east of where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Waterway. The proposed site is approximately 4.75 miles from where the Greenway Waterway empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Mine Pit is U-shaped, approximately 31.4 acres in size, and has an average depth of -20 feet, with pockets of -33 feet in depth. Marina proposed to fill the Mine Pit to 13.0 feet NGVD, place 2,285 linear feet of rip rap, and dredge 4.75 acres of the Mine Pit to -13.0 feet NGVD. The waters of the northwestern corner of the Mine Pit are separated from the waters of the Greenway Waterway by a plug of land approximately 100 to 150 feet wide. Marina proposed to remove the plug to create an entrance from the marina to the Greenway Waterway. The removal of the plug will result in a lowering of the level of water in the Mine Pit by approximately 3 to 5 feet to sea level, the level of the water in the Greenway Waterway. Marina also proposed to excavate a flushing canal channel between the Greenway Waterway and the northeast corner of the Mine Pit. The boundary of the property on which the Mine Pit is located is approximately 100 feet from the Mine Pit at its closest location. The Mine Pit was excavated from lime rock and Ona fine sands; Pits and Udorthents (both manmade) soil types exist throughout the project site. Weedy vegetation dominates the historically disturbed upland area surrounding the Mine Pit. Saltbush (Baccharis halimfolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), dog fennel (Eupatorium spp.), marsh fleabane (Pluches spp.), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera) exist along the Greenway Waterway. Southern red cedars (Juniperius silcicola) are scattered throughout the area. Cattails (Typha spp.) have invaded the edges of the Mine Pit. Ownership of the Proposed Site Property. Marina has no ownership interest in the property where the Mine Pit is located. Nor has Marina ever held such an interest. The proposed facility site is held in three undivided interests. At the time the permit applications were filed by Marina, Marina had an option contract to purchase the proposed site. At the time of the final hearing of this matter, the option contract was no longer in force. Marina had also been authorized in writing prior to filing the permit applications to act as agent for the owners of the site for purposes of seeking environmental permitting. It was stipulated at the time of the final hearing that two of the three undivided interest owners had authorized Marina to act as their agent for purposes of obtaining the permits at issue in this proceeding. At the time of the final hearing, the third undivided interest owner did not authorize Marina to act as its agent for any purpose. Marina is agreeable to a new condition being added to the draft permit by the Department requiring Marina to submit documentation to the Department before any development of the proposed facility is commenced proving that Marina has acquired interests in the proposed site necessary for it to carry out the permit conditions. It is the Water Management District's policy in implementing Rule 40D- 4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code, which requires applicants to provide reasonable assurances concerning their proposed projects, is to require the land owner to be the permittee. The Greenway Waterway and the Surrounding Area. The Greenway Waterway consists of natural and man-made waters formerly intended to be used as the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The waters of the Greenway Waterway are classified as "Class III" waters. The Cross Florida Barge Canal was deauthorized on January 22, 1991. In its place was created the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The State of Florida owns the majority of the lands within the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The state can, therefore, control development along the Greenway Waterway. A portion of the Greenway Waterway was constructed as part of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by digging a canal from a spillway at Lake Rousseau, east-northeast of the proposed site, to the Gulf of Mexico. This portion of the canal (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Canal"), is straight and was designed for a depth of 12 feet. The actual depth of the Greenway Canal varies and, in some locations, is 18 feet deep. The Greenway Canal is also approximately 250 feet wide. The Greenway Canal intersects the Withlacoochee River, which is located to the east of the proposed facility. Prior to the construction of the Greenway Canal, the Withlacoochee River ran from a spillway at Lake Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. After construction of the Greenway Canal, the portion of the Withlacoochee River which connects with the Gulf of Mexico was, and still is, separated from the Greenway Canal by an earthen berm. The western portion of the Withlacoochee River (hereinafter referred to as the "Upper Withlacoochee"), continues to run from Lake Rousseau for approximately 1.3 miles to the Greenway Canal and then runs to the Gulf of Mexico through the Greenway Canal. The depth of the Upper Withlacoochee varies from river bottom which is exposed at low tide to areas of approximately 20 feet. The depth of water, the speed at which water flows and the amount of aquatic vegetation in the Upper Withlacoochee varies depending on the amount of water released from Lake Rousseau through the spillway. For the past year, the rate of flow in the Upper Withlacoochee has been relatively high. There are currently two public boat ramps, but no marinas, located on the Greenway Canal. One of those boat ramps is in disrepair and the evidence failed to prove that it is in use. There are no marinas on the Upper Withlacoochee or the Greenway Canal. There is a Florida Marine Patrol station located on the Greenway Canal approximately one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 19. Whether the presence of the station will have any impact on the enforcement of speed limits in the Greenway Canal is purely speculative. Approximately 2 miles west of the proposed facility is an existing active mining operation owned by Independent Aggregates. Barges transport mine product along the Greenway Canal from the mine to the Gulf of Mexico. Another organization, known as "Holnam", has been permitted by the Department to construct a barge-loading facility opposite the Independent Aggregates' barge facility and mine. It is unlikely, however, that Holnam will actually begin operating barges on the Greenway Canal. A speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been imposed by the Department throughout the Greenway Canal. The speed limit was imposed to protect West India Manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal. The Upper Withlacoochee has been designated an idle-speed zone by local ordinance. Crab traps are located along the banks of the Greenway Canal for approximately four miles into the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico. Traps are generally anchored to the bottom by lines and are spaced approximately 100 feet apart, 20 to 15 feet from the bank. A channel extends for approximately 12 to 15 miles into the Gulf of Mexico from the mouth of the Greenway Canal. The channel is marked. There are obstructions and shallow water outside this channel. Prudent boaters will continue in the channel for approximately four to nine miles before turning north or south into the Gulf of Mexico. Operators of smaller boats and those with knowledge of the area are able, however, to navigate north or south closer to shore. Impact on the Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat. The West India Manatee is an endangered species, which means that it is in danger of extinction. Approximately 3000 manatees are found in Florida waters. Approximately half are located on the east coast and half on the west coast of Florida. There is little interchange between the two groups. The State of Florida is attempting to restore the manatee population to a size which will help to insure its survival as a species. In order for the manatee population to survive, human development and interaction with manatees must be managed. Manatee habitat needs to be preserved from development. Two of the most significant challenges to the survival of the manatee are the number of manatees killed by boats and the increasing number of boats in Florida waters. Collisions with boats is the greatest known cause of manatee deaths (approximately 25 percent). Manatee change locations frequently searching for food, drinking water, resting areas, potential mates and birthing areas. They also return to preferred habitat features. Manatee are attracted to areas that are calm and quiet for birthing areas. Shallow water, accessible from deeper water, is essential for birthing. After giving birth, the mother and calf generally remain in the area for some period of time, sometimes as long as months, until the calf is able to survive elsewhere. They will leave an area, however, if disturbed. Boat traffic, even at slow speeds, can cause disruption to mothers and young calves. Boat traffic can separate a mother and calf. There are approximately 300 manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida (from Tampa Bay to the Suwannee River), which includes the area of the proposed facility and Citrus County. This population has been increasing in recent years. Manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida require a stable source of warm water during the winter. During the winter ambient temperatures drop below the level at which the manatees' metabolism will sustain them. As a result of the need for warmer waters, most of the manatee in northwestern Florida spend the winter in Citrus County. Kings Bay, Crystal River and Homosassa all provide warm water locations for manatee. These sites are located to the south of the proposed facility. Kings Bay is the most important winter manatee habitat on the west coast of Florida. During the rest of the year, when waters are warmer, manatee leave their warm water, winter habitats to forage and investigate other habitat. Manatee that winter in the warm water sites in Citrus County generally migrate to the north. They travel to, and past, the mouth of the Greenway Canal, returning by the same general routes in the winter. Manatee also linger at the mouth of the Greenway Canal at the Gulf of Mexico because that area offers a combination of a relatively deep-water channel with adjacent shallow water and aquatic vegetation. Manatee use the waters of the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee. The Greenway Canal is not, however, considered particularly good habitat for manatee. It has relatively deep water, steep banks, little fresh water and little vegetation of interest to manatee. In 1991 Citrus County adopted a Manatee Protection Plan as part of its comprehensive growth management plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not identify the Greenway Canal as essential manatee habitat. The Manatee Protection Plan was adopted with the assistance of the Department. The Plan was based upon a compilation of manatee studies, marina inventory studies, and a comprehensive view of the county's waterway systems at the time the Plan was adopted. "Essential manatee habitat" is defined in the Manatee Protection Plan as "any land or water area constituting elements necessary to the survival and recovery of the manatee population from endangered status". Whether an area is "essential manatee habitat" is to be considered under the Plan as "a criteria for determining areas where dock facilities should be limited." The definition of "essential manatee habitat" for purposes of the Plan is different from the standard to be applied in by the Department in this case. The definition in the Plan is similar to the federal criteria considered and found to be different from that applicable to Department permitting cases in Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So.2d 644, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Manatee Protection Plan contemplates that a master plan will be undertaken to establish the capacity of the Greenway Canal for boat and marina facilities. That master plan has not been developed. The fact that the master plan has not been formally undertaken, however, is of little consequence. The Department, due to the State's ownership of the land surrounding the Greenway Canal, has been able to consider possible uses of the Greenway Canal for boating and marinas without a formal master plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not support a finding that the proposed facility will not have an adverse impact on the manatee. Although the waters of the Greenway Canal do not constitute good manatee habitat, the Upper Withlacoochee is considered good habitat, depending on the amount of water being released from the spillway at Lake Rousseau. Manatee have used the Upper Withlacoochee for feeding, resting and birthing. The Upper Withlacoochee has limited human activity, light boat traffic, sources of fresh water, a warm-water spring and aquatic vegetation. The Upper Withlacoochee has been used for birthing. Infant mortalities reported in the area suggest that the Upper Withlacoochee is used as a preferred birthing area. The rate of mortality suggests a higher rate of successful births. Aerial survey and mortality data also suggests that the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal are utilized throughout the year by manatee. Greatest use is seasonal. Aerial survey data underestimates the number of manatee utilizing the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal due to the lack of water clarity and due to the meandering course of, and vegetation along, the Upper Withlacoochee. Manatee mortality data concerning the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlachoochee provides some indication of the fact that the number of manatee that travel through the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is not insignificant. While there was considerable evidence presented concerning whether the number of manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is accurate or has been underestimated, based upon aerial survey data and manatee mortality comparisons, the critical fact proved by the evidence in this case is that a significant number of manatee do use the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat, including for birthing. The evidence also proved that, in order for manatee to use the Upper Withlacoochee, it is necessary that they travel the length of the Greenway Canal. Another critical fact proved by the evidence is to this matter is that manatee traveling to and from the Upper Withlacoochee must travel the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico past the proposed facility. The evidence was also unrefuted that increased boat traffic from the proposed facility will have the potential to adversely impact the manatee. That adverse impact will take the form of physical injury due to collisions and stress on manatee from increased human activity. The activity could reduce the use of the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat. What remains to be determined is whether the conditions of the draft permit will provide adequate assurances that the impact will not be contrary to the public interest. The Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management determined that, without the conditions to be added to the draft permit it suggested, the following impacts could be expected as a result of approval of the proposed facility: The probability of manatee/boat collisions increases with increasing boat traffic where boaters and manatees regularly inhabit the same waterways. While the current level of barge/vessel traffic does not appear to be a problem, increasing the amount of recrea- tional and commercial vessel traffic to the proposed levels in this narrow waterway is expected to adversely impact the endangered manatee. Barge trips may become more frequent, and barges traveling down the center of the canal drives manatees toward the edges of the canal. This increases the risk of manatee/recreational boat collisions, and increases the risk of these recreational boats driving manatees underneath, ahead of or behind traveling barges. The probability of lethal and sublethal propeller strikes increases. Also, there is not sufficient space for manatees between the canal bottom and the bottom of a fully loaded barge, with only one foot clearance as typical for loaded barges. The probability of a manatee being crushed will increase, and this impact is difficult to offset with conservation measures other than not allowing the activity. Page 2, Petitioners exhibit 7 and CRMI exhibit 10. The evidence in this case supports the foregoing conclusions. The increased boat traffic from the proposed facility, even if limited to sailboats and even if power boats are allowed at lower speed limits than currently in force in the Greenway Canal, may cause impacts with manatees due to the increased traffic and the use of the Greenway Canal by barges and recreational boats. It is possible that manatees, confronted by oncoming recreational boats and barges, may be forced into the path of barges and be crushed. Barges used by Independent Aggregates are approximately 72 feet wide and 250 feet long and are pulled or pushed by tugboats. The probability of this conflict taking place will be greater if barge use of the Greenway Canal is increased as proposed by Independent Aggregates. The greatest threat to the manatee of the proposed facility is the threat of death or injury as a result of cuts or blunt trauma from collisions of boats with manatees. This threat is primarily associated, however, with faster moving, power boats. Therefore, the extent of possible adverse impact on the manatee will be determined largely by the speed limit imposed in the Greenway Canal. To mitigate against the possible adverse impact on manatee, the Department has included certain conditions in the draft permit. Those conditions are found in Condition 6 of the draft permit and were recommended by the Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management. As a result of the Bureau of Protected Species Management's review of the proposed facility, it was recommended that the proposed facility not be approved if all of the conditions suggested by it were not included in the draft permit. All of the conditions recommended, except one, were included in the draft permit. The condition not included was one that provided that a violation of manatee speed zones would be grounds for revocation of the lease of any slip or dock space at the proposed facility. The lease revocation condition recommended by the Bureau of Protected Species Management was not included in the permit due to concern by the Department as to whether the condition could be legally imposed. The language of the memorandum of review of the proposed facility from the Bureau of Protected Species Management suggesting that the proposed project should not be approved unless all recommended conditions are accepted is standard language used by the Bureau and not intended to be strictly interpreted. The Bureau ultimately concluded that, despite its recommendation, it believes that the conditions of the draft permit are adequate to offset adverse impacts to the manatee. The Bureau's explanation is sufficient to eliminate any inference that otherwise may be drawn from its suggestion that the proposed facility should not be approved due to the exclusion of the permit condition concerning revocation of leases for speed zone violators. Condition 6 requires, among other things, that signs warning of possible manatee activity be displayed during construction, that personnel associated with the project be educated about the manatee, and that other measures designed to protect manatee during construction be followed. Due to the fact that most of the construction will take place in the enclosed Mine Pit, there should be little, if any adverse impact on manatee as as result of construction. Condition 6 also provides that permanent manatee warning signs and information concerning manatee be posted by the marina, and that a manatee awareness education program be established at the proposed facility. Condition 6 also limits the use of the boat ramp of the proposed facility to boats stored "on-site." The ramp will not be open to the general public. Finally, condition 6.l. provides the most important limitation of the use of the proposed facility. Condition 6.1 limits use of the proposed facility to sailboats and, therefore, prohibits the use of power boats: . . . until the applicant has provided documentation to the Department that manatee protection speed zones in the CFBC have been revised, approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management, and posted in the CFBC. Occupancy of the facility by sailboats shall not be restricted. The limitation of the use of a marina to sailboats should adequately mitigate the adverse impacts to the manatee from the proposed facility. See Coscan, at 651. The effect of condition 6.l. is to allow Marina to obtain a modification of the draft permit after it is issued to allow power boats based upon events which may take place in the future. There are no guarantees that those events will result in reasonable assurances that the adverse impact to the manatee from power boat use at the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest. The speed zones which must be established and approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management will be established, if at all, through rule- making procedures. See Rule 62N-22.011, Florida Administrative Code. The process would allow public input. Additionally, the outcome of the process would be subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Because of possible challenges to the efforts to impose speed zones, it is possible that speed zones adequate to reduce the adverse impacts to the manatee which would satisfy the public interest test applicable in this matter will not be adopted. The standards which the Department must adhere to in establishing speed zones are not the same standards applicable in this matter. In this matter, reasonable assurances must be given that there will not be adverse impacts to the manatee, a threatened species, contrary to the public interest. Establishing speed zones pursuant to other provisions of law will not insure that the reasonable assurances required for the issuance of the permit at issue in this case will be given. Although the resulting speed zones may be adequate to protect the manatee, there is no way to determine what kind of speed zones will be established. Without knowing the ultimate speed zones which may be established, or, more importantly, to know that the speed zones will meet the public interest test applicable in this matter, it is not possible to find the reasonable assurances Marina is required to provide at this time or at any time before the proposed facility is actually permitted. If reasonable assurances can be given that the use of power boats in the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest once speed zones are established, Marina or the owner of the proposed facility may apply for a permit modification. At that time the requisite reasonable assurances concerning power boat use can be determined. The provision of condition 6.l. allowing Marina to avoid seeking a permit modification at that time is, therefore, at a minimum, unnecessary, and at its worse, an effort to allow Marina to avoid having to provide the necessary reasonable assurances concerning the use of power boats. If only the impact on the manatee were considered in establishing speed zones, it could be concluded slow or idle speed should be imposed throughout the Greenway Canal and for some distance into the Gulf of Mexico in order to adequately reduce the adverse impact from the proposed facility on the manatee. Establishing speed zones, however, requires a consideration of other factors. The evidence in this case failed to address those factors sufficiently to recommend a condition to the draft permit concerning speed zones. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that reasonable assurances have not been given that there will not be unreasonable adverse impact to the manatee if the use of power boats at the proposed facility is allowed as provided in condition 6.l. of the draft permit. Other Public Interest Criteria. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. The evidence also failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The docks and other marina facilities will all be restricted to the Mine Pit, which is not now open to navigation. There is adequate width in the Greenway Canal to allow boats to exit the Mine Pit into the Greenway Canal and for boats and barges in the Greenway Canal to pass each other. Rip-rap to be placed along the Mine Pit shore and other shoreline stabilization activities will be adequate to prevent erosion and shoaling. Groundwater flow at the proposed site should not be adversely affected by the proposed facility, except as discussed, infra. The proposed facility should not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Recreational values (boating and fishing) should be enhanced as a result of the proposed facility. If condition 6.l. is not eliminated and power boats are allowed in the Greenway Canal, there are no assurances that the recreational value provided by the manatee will not be adversely impacted. The proposed facility is intended to be permanent. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect or enhance significant historical or archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. If condition 6.l. is not modified to eliminate the use of power boats automatically upon the establishment of speed zones, there are no reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee will not be adversely affected by the proposed facility. Otherwise, the proposed facility should not have an adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of current functions of the area. Groundwater Quality Standards. The general geology in the area of the proposed facility and the Greenway Canal is known as karst terrain. Karst terrain is geology formed by the solution of limestone over millions of years. Sequential episodes of exposure of the Floridan aquifer, which underlies the area, occurs in karst terrain as the result of the natural formation of sink holes. These sink holes impact the movement of groundwater. Information exists to reasonably describe the hydrogeology of the area in "regional" terms. There is insufficient information generally available about the specific hydrogeology of the proposed site or the immediately surrounding area. Underlying the entire area and the proposed site in particular is the Floridan aquifer. The properties of the Floridan aquifer in coastal Citrus County, including the proposed site, can vary enormously over relatively short vertical distances. This variability impacts the movement of groundwater. The groundwater under the proposed site is classified as G-II. The terms "potentiometric surface" are used to describe the level to which groundwater will rise above sea level. The higher groundwater rises above sea level, the thicker the layer of underlying drinkable water should be before reaching an interface between drinkable and undrinkable water. In central Citrus County, the potentiometric surface is relatively low and flat at approximately 5 or 6 feet above sea level. The resulting interface between drinkable and nondrinkable water is found at 200 or more feet. Due to natural geological conditions, moving to the northwest of Citrus County, including the Greenway Canal area, potentiometric levels are higher. Therefore, thicker layers of drinkable water should be found around the proposed facility site and the Greenway Canal than in central Citrus County. Because of higher potentiometric surface in the area of the Greenway Canal, the layer of drinkable water would be expected to continue beyond 120 feet below the surface. Construction of the Greenway Canal has resulted in the intrusion of saltwater from the Greenway Canal into the groundwater. It has also resulted in the upconing of mineralized (sulfate) waters from deeper to less deep levels within the Floridan aquifer. These impacts have been significant with regard to the chloride levels (from the saltwater) and sulfate upconing. The impact of the construction of the Greenway Canal on saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing is the result of the lowering of the surface waters to sea level in the Greenway Canal. The lowering of the level of water in the Greenway Canal has had the effect of decreasing the potentiometric surface and, consequently, reducing the thickness of the layer of drinkable groundwater. Saltwater has intruded along and beneath the Greenway Canal. The extent of this intrusion is represented graphically on Petitioner's exhibits 13 and 14. Saltwater intrusion has occurred primarily as a result of downward leakage of saltwater traveling up the Greenway Canal. The saltwater intrusion has been localized around the Greenway Canal. The wedge of saltwater intrusion has reached to approximately where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Canal, approximately one-half mile east of the proposed site. Although it is "theoretically" possible that the saltwater wedge could continue to move along the entire length of the Greenway Canal, the evidence fails to support such a conclusion. Due to freshwater discharges from Lake Rousseau, the evidence supports a conclusion that the saltwater wedge will not move further eastward to any significant extent. The lowering of the waters of the Greenway Canal to sea level has had the effect of bringing sea level elevations to the Floridan aquifer several miles further inland than had been the case before construction of the Greenway Canal. Groundwater adjacent to the Greenway Canal, which is at levels higher than sea level, has discharged into the Greenway Canal. This has caused a lower groundwater level and the movement upward of groundwater. Similar effects have occurred naturally along the Withlacoochee River. As groundwater rises it comes into contact with a geologic unit which contains calcium sulfate. The sulfate mixes with the groundwater causing the "mineralized" groundwater. While the change in surface waters in the Greenway Canal was quick, the change in groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing has taken place only as fast as groundwater in the area flows. Generally, groundwaters flow very slowly. The impact of the Greenway Canal on upconing of sulfates will continue over time. Mineralized waters will continue to move upward and, perhaps, laterally away from the Greenway Canal. Pockets of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) can be found naturally occurring around the proposed site. Sulfate enriched groundwater in coastal areas naturally move toward, and discharge into, the surface waters along the coastal boundary. This process occurs along the Gulf of Mexico and the shoreline of Citrus County. The construction of the Greenway Canal has disrupted this natural process. The Mine Pit, when it was in use, was dewatered to different levels at various times. The dewatering took place for varying periods of time. Usually, the Mine Pit would be completely dewatered for a period of approximately three months. On one occasion, the Mine Pit was dewatered for a period of two years (1989 to 1991). It was dewatered to allow the removal of dolomite. The Mine Pit was allowed to fill back up with water after each dewatering. The dewatering of the Mine Pit was regulated by the Water Management District. The permit allowing dewatering of the Mine Pit required that the permit holder mitigate for adverse impacts of dewatering, including the inducement of natural contaminants into the aquifer. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent of adverse impacts of the dewatering or whether the permit holder actually mitigated against any such adverse impacts. The lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit caused some upconing of sulfates for the same reason that the digging of the Greenway Canal did. Lowering the water level in the Mine Pit lowered the potentiometric level. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the impact or how long the impact lasted. The lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level by connecting the Mine Pit to the Greenway Canal as proposed by Marina will have the same general impact as the digging of the Greenway Canal on the upconing of sulfates. Unlike the impact of the dewatering of the Mine Pit, the proposed modification will be permanent. Lowering the water level will have the same type impact for the same reasons that the digging of the Greenway Canal caused upconing. The potentiometric level will be permanently lowered; the layer of drinkable water will be permanently decreased. The evidence failed to prove that the lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level as a result of the proposed project will have the same impact on saltwater intrusion. This impact is less likely because the Mine Pit is four and a half miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The upconing of sulfates as a result of the construction of the proposed facility will cause the levels of sulfates found in some portion of the currently drinkable layer of groundwater to exceed water quality standards. The area impacted will consist of groundwater which would otherwise have been expected to be potable. Comments concerning the proposed facility were provided to the Department by the Water Management District. By letter dated August 16, 1995, the Water Management District informed the Department that it was anticipated that the proposed facility would result in saltwater intrusion and upconing of mineralized water and that the area's groundwater could be expected to be degraded inconsistent with Water Management District rules. In response to the Water Management District's comments, Marina agreed to undertake a hydrogeologic study to gather site specific information to address those concerns. As a part of Marina's study, one monitoring well was drilled on the proposed site. The well was drilled to a depth of 450 feet in order to gather data concerning water quality at various depths. In early 1996, the Water Management District concluded that the results of the study undertaken by Marina had resolved its concerns. The test well was drilled to the south of the Mine Pit, approximately 2500 feet from the Greenway Canal. The water quality tests run on water taken from the test well reflected a sharp change in water quality at a depth of approximately 120 feet. The water below that level contained high levels of sulfates: 552 milligrams per liter of sulfate. Immediately above the high sulfate waters, low sulfate levels (12 milligrams per liter) were found. This result is contrary to what would be expected to be found based upon the higher potentiometric surface in this area of Citrus County. Because the potentiometric surface is higher in the area, it would be expected that the layer of drinkable groundwater would be considerably higher than 120 feet. The findings concerning the thickness of the drinkable groundwater found at the test well are consistent with the conclusions concerning the impacts of the digging of the Greenway Canal. As a result of the digging of the Greenway Canal and the lowering of the water level to sea level, the resulting decrease in the potentiometric surface has caused the upconing of mineralized waters and a decrease in the layer of drinkable groundwater. The Department and Marina have not disputed the fact that drinkable groundwater will be impacted by the upconing of mineralized waters (sulfates) as a result of connecting the Mine Pit with the Greenway Canal and lowering the level of water in the Mine Pit to sea level. The Department and Marina, however, have suggested that the extent of the impact of the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will not extend more than 100 feet from the Mine Pit and will be limited to the proposed site. The evidence failed to support this position. The unplugging of the Mine Pit will have the effect of increasing the area of water below sea level in the area by 12 percent of the size of the area of the Greenway Canal. Data from test wells around the Greenway Canal and other data has indicated that the upconing of mineralized water as a result of the lowering of the water level in the Greenway Canal has extended considerably more than 100 feet from the Greenway Canal. In light of the fact that the Mine Pit is equal in surface area to 12 percent of the surface area of the Greenway Canal, there is reason to be concerned that the area of impact from the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will also be significant. In light of the foregoing, and due to the variability of the geology of the area, the data from a single well on the site is of questionable value. Data from a single well simply does not provide the information necessary for Marina to provide reasonable assurances that the impact on groundwater from its proposed facility will be limited to an area of 100 feet from the Mine Pit. There is simply not enough data concerning the Mine Pit to conclude with any reasonable assurance that the upconing of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) will be limited to an area of 100 feet around the Mine Pit. Because of the size of the Mine Pit in relation to the Greenway Canal and the impact on upconing from the Greenway Canal, it is more likely that the impact of upconing will exceed 100 feet. A log of geologic characteristics of the test well was maintained. A confining unit or layer was found between the high-sulfate and low-sulfate waters at between 110 and 120 feet below the surface. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent to which the layer may extend horizontally from the well location. In light of the general geology of Citrus County and the region around the proposed site, insufficient data exists to reach any conclusion about the extent of the confining layer. Establishing the extent of the confining layer would require more extensive (and costly) study of the site. The existence of a confining layer would also have no significant impact on the degree of upconing as a result of lowering the water level in the Mine Pit. I. Surface Water Quality Standards. Petitioners stipulated that the proposed facility would not violate surface water quality standards except with regard to the standard for chloride. Because of the flow of fresh water from Lake Rousseau and the flushing canal to be constructed at the proposed site, reasonable assurances have been given by Marina that there will be sufficient flushing of the Mine Pit to preclude a violation of chloride standards for surface waters. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the possibility that the salt water wedge resulting from the construction of the Greenway Canal may extend landward and eventually into the Mine Pit was too speculative and "theoretical".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc.'s application for wetland resource permit (dredge and fill) and the application for Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Goodwin, Esquire Save the Manatee Club, Inc. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 210 Maitland, Florida 32751 Peter Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne Hrydziusko Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Douglas Roberts, Esquire HOPPING, GREEN, SAMS & SMITH, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Respondent GL Homes filed a permit application with Respondent District for Conceptual Approval of a surface water management system. On August 28, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of its staff report and notice of rights to Respondent GL Homes. The staff report was the staff's summary and recommendation and Respondent District's notice of proposed agency action. The staff report indicated, among other things, that it was a "draft" and that the last date for action by the Governing Board of Respondent District was September 12, 1996. On or about August 29, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of the same staff report and notice of rights to interested third parties, including Petitioners. The notice of rights provided, among other things: PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the action which is proposed in the enclosed Notice of Proposed Agency Action/Staff Review Summary, may petition for an administrative hearing ... Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within four- teen (14) days of actual receipt of this Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section 120.57, Florida Statutes, concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. There is no dispute that this provision is clear and unambiguous. Petitioners did not receive the mailed staff report and notice of rights. Before the filing of Respondent GL Homes' permit application, Petitioners had been involved with other permit applications which had come before Respondent District and had filed petitions for administrative hearings on other applications. Petitioners were well familiar with Respondent District's process, involving permit applications, its staff reports and the notice of rights. Sometime during the first week of September 1996, while at the Respondent District's office, Petitioner Durando obtained a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando appeared at the September 12, 1966, Governing Board meeting even though the permit application had not appeared on any agenda for the Governing Board that she had received. The permit application was to be heard as part of a list of "Add On Items", which did not provide prior notice of these items to the public. At the meeting of September 12, 1996, Petitioner Durando obtained again a copy of the staff report. However, the staff report contained a cover memo, dated September 9, 1996, to the Governing Board from the Director of Respondent District's Regulation Department, with four maps included. The cover memo was written in layman's terms and was a summary of the staff report. The cover memo contained no modification of the staff report. Moreover, the staff report attached to the cover memo contained no modifications. Cover memoranda are routinely prepared for the members of the Governing Board for items on which public comment is expected. Public comment was expected on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. A problem with notice to the public, regarding the Governing Board considering Respondent GL Homes' permit application at the September 12, 1996, was brought to the attention of the Governing Board. On the recommendation of Respondent District's staff, the Governing Board decided not to address the permit application at that meeting but to re-notice the public hearing on the permit application for October 10, 1996. Petitioner Durando was concerned as to whether Respondent District had to re-publish the staff report and notice of rights. She made an inquiry to a member of Respondent District's staff regarding this issue, who was unsure if a re-publication had to occur and informed Petitioner Durando of his uncertainty. Later in the evening of the same day of Petitioner Durando's inquiry, that same member of Respondent District's staff left a message on Petitioner Durando's answering machine that no re-publication of the staff report and notice of rights was required since there was no modification or change of the staff report. Also, prior to departing the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting, Petitioner Durando inquired of Respondent District's counsel as to when was the due date for filing a petition for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. Respondent District's counsel informed her that she must file her petition within 14 days of receiving a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando had attended other Governing Board meetings in the past which contained permit applications as agendaed items and as add on items. No evidence was presented to show that the prior permit applications considered by the Governing Board at its meetings did not contain a cover memo from Respondent District's staff, which summarized in layman's terms the staff report. Petitioner Durando believed that she had 14 days from September 12, 1996, in which to file a petition with Respondent District for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. She filed a petition on behalf of the Petitioners on September 26, 1996. Neither prior to nor subsequent to the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting was a modification made to the staff report or a second staff report prepared. Petitioners' actual receipt of the proposed agency action was sometime during the first week of September 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 2, 1996, their petition for an administrative hearing must have been filed on or before September 16, 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 6, 1996, their petition must have been filed on or before September 20, 1996. At all times material hereto, Petitioner Durando was not an attorney. Subsequent to filing the petition for an administrative hearing, Petitioners obtained the services of an attorney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the petition for an administrative hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED in this 13th day of November 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1996.
The Issue Did Respondent, William D. Going, willfully and intentionally violate Florida Statutes and Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) rules regulating well construction? If he did, what corrective action is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact William Going is a licensed water well contractor. He has held License Number 1564 since 2007. Mr. Going is a managing member of Going Irrigation, Inc., and conducts business under that name. Mr. Going constructed four sand point irrigation wells at a residential property in St. Petersburg, Florida. He did not have and had not applied for a Well Construction Permit (WCP). 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification unless noted otherwise. 2 The findings are based upon the evidence admitted at the hearing and the stipulations of the parties. Mr. Going did not call or otherwise contact the District to request a WCP. The District operates an online permitting system called the Water Management Information System (WMIS). The District will issue a WCP based upon a telephone call, an application on its website, a faxed application, a mailed application, or a hand-delivered application. The District routinely issues permits within two hours of receiving an application, often within ten minutes to half an hour. The District's application system operates from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It is infrequently offline for a few hours. While quick, the process reviews significant information. It verifies that the well location is sufficiently distant from septic systems, verifies construction methods and materials, and verifies, if the well is for drinking water, that the well is not too close to a contamination site. Mr. Going is a registered and experienced user of WMIS. The District learned of the unpermitted wells on April 28, 2020, when it received an anonymous complaint. On May 5, 2020, approximately ten days after he constructed the wells, Mr. Going submitted WCP Application 889173 for construction of the four already completed sand point irrigation wells. He did not disclose that they were already completed. He falsely represented them as proposed. The District approved the application on May 6, 2020, and issued WCP 889173 to Mr. Going. On June 11, 2020, Mr. Going submitted four Well Completion Reports for the wells, falsely representing that each was completed on May 7, 2020. This was more than 30 days after Mr. Going completed the wells. Mr. Going claimed at the hearing that he tried to apply for a WCP for four or five days before constructing the wells but was locked out of the WMIS. Mr. Going said that his son usually obtained permits online for the company. He also claimed that he tried to apply online on April 24 and 25, 2019. His claims are not persuasive. There is no question that Mr. Going knew the requirements for obtaining a permit and reporting completion. In 2009, in Order No. SWF 09- 017, the District imposed a $500.00 fine and assessed five points against his license for an almost identical offense. In that case, Mr. Going also constructed a well without a permit from the District or applying for a permit. In that case, like this one, he sought to excuse failure to apply for a permit by claiming difficulties with the website. In that case he blamed his wife's unfamiliarity with computers, rather than his own, for failure to apply. In that case, like this one, he applied for and obtained a permit after constructing the well. Mr. Going knowingly and willfully constructed four unpermitted wells, filed a WCP application more than thirty days after he completed the wells, and misrepresented the dates of completion in the WCP completion reports that he filed with the District. Mr. Going tries to characterize his after-the-fact misrepresentations as mitigation. But they were not. Mitigation would have been contacting the District to advise it of the wells' unpermitted construction and the asserted justification for it. Furthermore, his misrepresentations deprived the District of the chance to prevent construction of the wells using improper materials or near a septic tank or contaminated location.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the above testimony and the exhibits received into evidence in this cause, the undersigned Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact with regard to the issue in dispute: The applicants, as owners and lessees of 3,300 acres of land to be used for sugar cane production, propose to install a surface water management system consisting of levees, ditches, culverts, and pumps for drainage and irrigation purposes. Irrigation will be drawn from and drainage water will be discharged into Canal 51, a project works of the FCD. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD staff concerning the permit for water use and connection to C-51. The applicant proposes to discharge, via two 30,000 gallon per minute pumps, one inch per acre per day or 62,239 gallons per minute into C-51. The soils on the applicants' land are primarily muck types which are high in organic nitrogen. A water level of three feet below ground level, as proposed, will probably cause such nitrogen in the muck soil to decompose, resulting in soil subsidence and production of inorganic nitrogen. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) resulting from muck decomposition and crop fertilization may enter the water in the interior canals and cause such water to have a higher nutrient content. The water in Canal 51 now has low concentrations of nutrients, as compared with the waters in canals appurtenant to other sugar cane producing areas. There appear to be unique hydrological conditions on the land in question which may keep the drainage system flushed and nitrate-free and there is evidence that sawgrass areas act as an effective nutrient filter. There was no evidence that additional nutrients entering C-51 would be environmentally harmful or degrading to the waters in C-51, both parties admitting that further research and scientific data is needed to determine the safe level of nutrients in this area. The applicants and other interested groups have shown that the construction. and operation of a retention or impoundment area would cause an adverse economic impact upon landowners and would have an adverse economic effect upon consumers, the general labor force and the community. The FCD has not adequately demonstrated that the waters of C-51 would be degraded by the applicants' proposed project or that a 140 acre impoundment area would be a reasonable condition to impose upon the issuance of the permits in question. A water quality monitoring system, such as proposed in the original and revised staff reports, will permit the parties to determine whether the water in C-51 is being degraded by the addition of nutrients.
Recommendation Based upon the above cited testimony, evidence, findings of fact and conclusions off law, the following recommendations are made: It is recommended that a water use permit, a Surface water management permit and a right-of-way occupancy permit be issued, all in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the original Staff Report dated August 5, 1975, attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is recommended that the additional requirement of a 140-acre retention area set forth in the Revised Staff Report be rejected. It is further recommended that an additional condition be attached to the surface water management permit. That condition would be to have such permit expire at the same time as the water use permit; to wit: July 15, 1977, so as to allow the FCD and the applicants sufficient time to collect further data on the effect of nutrients on the waters of C-51 and compare said data with the information derived from the monitoring program required under the permits. If such data and comparisons sufficiently demonstrate that the waters of C-51 will be degraded by the applicants' project, a retention area requirement would then be a reasonable condition to the reissuance of a permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George H. Bailey, Esquire JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A. 601 Flagler Drive Court Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John Wheeler, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida =================================================================
