The Issue The issue in this case is whether Water Use Permit (WUP) Application Number 20009478.005 meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes (2001), Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.301 (April 2001), and the District’s Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Alan Behrens, owns real property and a house trailer located at 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail, in Arcadia, Florida. Behrens uses a two-inch well as the primary source of running water for his trailer. Boran and his family operate a ranch and sod farm in Arcadia, Florida, under the limited partnership of Boran Ranch and Sod, Ltd. Boran uses several different on-site wells to irrigate the farm. See Findings 12-17, infra. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D. Permit History Boran’s property is a little over 1,000 acres in size, on which he has raised cattle and grown sod for approximately the past four years. Before Boran owned the property, its prior occupants used the land for growing fall and spring row crops (primarily tomatoes). Boran's cattle and sod farm uses less water than was used by previous owners and occupants. In 1989, the original permit holders could make annual average daily withdrawals of 309,000 gallons but also were allowed a maximum daily withdrawal of 6,480,000 gallons. In 1992, the permitted withdrawals increased to an annual average daily quantity of 2,210,000 gallons, with a peak monthly limit of 3,596,000 gallons per day. On December 14, 1999, Boran received an agricultural water use permit (WUP No. 20009478.004) from the District. This current existing permit expires on December 14, 2009. The current permit grants Boran the right to withdraw groundwater for his agricultural use in the annual average daily quantity of 1,313,000 gallons, and with a peak month daily quantity of 3,177,000 gallons. On September 11, 2000, Boran filed an application to modify his existing water use permit. Modification of Boran's existing permit does not lengthen the term of the permit, and the scope of the District's review was limited to those features or changes that are proposed by the modification. The proposed modification would allow Boran to increase his annual average daily quantity by 175,000 gallons, and increase the peak month daily quantity by 423,900 gallons, for the irrigation of an additional 129 acres of sod. With the proposed increase, the new annual average daily quantity will be 1,488,000 gallons, and the new peak month daily quantity will be 3,600,900 gallons. The proposed modification also provides for the construction of an additional well (DID #6) on the southeastern portion of property, which will withdraw groundwater from the upper Floridan aquifer. The proposed agency action also entails a revision of the irrigation efficiency rating for the entirety of Boran Ranch. Irrigation efficiency refers to the ability to direct water to its intended target, which in this case means the root zone of the sod, without losing water to evaporation and downward seepage. Under the proposed permit modification, Boran will increase the entire farm’s water efficiency from 65 percent to 75 percent. As discussed further in the Conditions for Issuance section infra, the District's AGMOD modeling program uses this efficiency rating as part of its determination of the appropriate quantities for withdrawals. The higher the efficiency rating, the less water received under a permit. Because the efficiency rating increased, the application rate for water decreased from 42" per year to 36.4" per year for the entire Boran Ranch. Boran's Wells There are six well sites (labeled according to District identification numbers, e.g., DID #3) existing or proposed on Boran’s property. DID #1 is an eight-inch well located in the northeastern portion of the property. DID #1 provides water solely from the intermediate aquifer. DID #2 is an eight-inch well located in the middle of the property. DID #2 withdraws water from both the intermediate and upper Floridan aquifers. Both DID #1 and DID #2 were installed in 1968, and predate both the first water use permit application for the farm and the District's water use regulatory system. DID #4 is a twelve-inch well located in the north- central part of the property and solely taps from the upper Floridan aquifer. DID #4 had already been permitted and constructed as of the date of the proposed modification application at issue in this case. DID #3 and DID #5 are twelve-inch wells which have already been permitted for the southern and northern portions of the property, respectively, but have not yet been constructed. Both wells will withdraw water only from the upper Floridan aquifer. DID #6 is a proposed twelve-inch well to be located on the southeastern portion of the property and to irrigate an additional area of sod. DID #3, #5, and #6 will all be cased to a depth of approximately 540 feet, and only open to the upper Floridan aquifer to a depth of approximately 940 feet. By casing the well with pipe surrounded by cement, these wells will be sealed off to all aquifers above 540 feet, including the intermediate aquifer. All the wells on the property are used to irrigate sod. The wells have artesian flow, but utilize diesel pumps to provide consistent flow pressure year-round throughout the fields (some of which can be a mile and a half from a well). Since running the pumps costs money, there is an economic incentive not to over-irrigate. In addition, over-irrigation can lead to infestations of fungi and insects, and eventually cause the grass to rot and die. As a result, the fields receive irrigation only when dry areas in the fields appear and the grass begins to wilt. Boran Ranch Operations and Management Practices Boran Ranch primarily grows three kinds of grasses: St. Augustine Floratam; St. Augustine Palmetto; and Bahia. (Boran also is experimenting on a smaller scale with common paspalum and common Bermuda.) The Bahia grass, which is what also grows in the ranch's cattle pasture, does not require irrigation; the St. Augustine grasses are less drought- resistant and require irrigation at times. The majority of the sod sold to residential installers (who ordinarily work for landscape companies) is a St. Augustine grass. Commercial or governmental roadside installations favor Bahia. Currently, Boran sells more Bahia than St. Augustine. But market demand determines which types of grass are produced on the farm. As residential use and demand for St. Augustine in southwest Florida increases, so would the proportion of the farm used for growing St. Augustine grass. Boran grows sod year-round because of a large demand for the product in Ft. Myers and Cape Coral, and to a lesser extent in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte. Sod helps control erosion and is considered to have aesthetic value. There also was some evidence that sod lowers the ambient temperatures, as compared to bare dirt; but the evidence was not clear how sod would compare to other ground cover in lowering temperatures. When subsurface seepage irrigation is being used, a sod field must be disked and "laser-leveled" to the proper elevation, with a slight slope created in the field to help ensure proper irrigation and drainage, before it can be used for sod production. The fields are laser-leveled before the irrigation system is installed and the crop is planted. The perforated irrigation supply lines of Boran Ranch’s subsurface irrigation system, also known as the "tile," run the opposite direction of the slope of the field and perpendicular to the main irrigation line. Once the subsurface irrigation system is installed, the field receives sprigs of sod, which are then watered and "rolled" to pack them into the ground. Approximately three months after a field has been rolled, the new sod is then periodically fertilized, sprayed and mowed. Sod takes approximately one year to grow before it may be harvested. The sod at Boran Ranch is harvested via tractor with a "cutter" on its side, which cuts underneath the grass, lifts it up onto a conveyor belt, and then onto a pallet for shipping. There are four different types of irrigation systems used for growing sod in Florida: (1) pivot systems which rely on sprinklers attached to overhead lines that rotate around a fixed point; (2) overhead rain guns which utilize motorized hydraulic pressure to spray a field; (3) above-ground seepage; and (4) subsurface irrigation systems (which can also be used to drain excess water from fields during large rain events). The most efficient irrigation system used for sod in Florida is the subsurface irrigation system. Boran Ranch first started the subsurface irrigation system approximately four years ago. Since that time, Boran Ranch has converted almost all its fields to the subsurface irrigation system, at a cost of approximately $1150 to $1350 per acre. As a result of this conversion process, Boran Ranch now uses less water per acre of sod. The subsurface irrigation system delivers water from a well to a water control structure (also known as the "box") via the imperforated main irrigation line. The perforated lines of the "tile" are connected to this main irrigation line at a 90-degree angle. The largest portion of the "box" sits underground. Once the water in the main irrigation line reaches the "box," water builds up behind removable boards contained in the box, creating the backpressure which forces water out into the tile. Water flows out from the tile to maintain the water table level at or near the root zone of the sod. Subsurface irrigation systems only function on property that has a hardpan layer beneath the soil. The hardpan layer acts as a confining unit to minimize the downward seepage of water, thereby allowing the subsurface irrigation system to work efficiently. Behrens questioned whether Boran Ranch has the necessary hardpan based on Todd Boran's reliance on hydrogeologists for this information. But the expert testimony of Boran's hydrogeology consultant and the District's hydrogeologist confirmed Todd Boran's understanding. Typically, the highest board in the box has the same height as the top of the field. Once the water level inside the box surpasses the height of the last board, water will spill over that board into the remainder of the box and then out another main irrigation line to the next box and set of tiles. By removing some of the boards in the box, Boran can bypass irrigating certain sections of his fields in favor of other areas. Excess water from the fields flows into field ditches which lead to wetlands on the property. If water leaves the wetlands during episodes of heavy rains, it flows downstream to the Peace River. Conditions for Issuance Boran Ranch is located in southwestern DeSoto County, in an area designated by the District as the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). The District created the SWUCA, which covers 5,000 square miles, after first determining that the groundwater resources of eastern Tampa Bay and Highlands Ridge regions were stressed and creating the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA) and Highlands Ridge Water Caution Area (HRWUCA). Both the ETBWUCA and the HRWUCA are contained within the larger boundaries of the SWUCA. Within the ETBWUCA is an area along the coasts of portions of Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota counties known as the Most Impacted Area (MIA). Special permitting rules exist for new projects located within the ETBWUCA, HRWUCA, and MIA, but not within the remainder of the "undifferentiated" SWUCA. Boran Ranch is located in this "undifferentiated" area of the SWUCA. Behrens took the position that Boran should not be permitted any additional water use until special permitting rules are promulgated for the "undifferentiated" SWUCA. But Behrens could cite no authority for such a moratorium. Meanwhile, the more persuasive evidence was that no such moratorium would be reasonable or appropriate. The evidence proved that the quantities authorized by the proposed modification are necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand, as required by Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(a). Boran sought additional water quantities through the permit modification application in order to irrigate an additional 129 acres of its sod farm. The application reflects a need for additional water, associated with additional acreage added to the farm. Boran used the District's AGMOD spreadsheet model, which is based on a mathematical methodology known as the modified Blainey-Criddle method, to determine the reasonable quantities for Boran's specific agricultural use. AGMOD inputs into its computations the following variables: (1) geographic location of the proposed use; (2) type of crop grown; (3) irrigation (efficiency); (4) pump capacity; (5) soil type; and (6) number of acres to be irrigated. AGMOD is a generally accepted tool used for determining the allocation of water quantities for agricultural use. In the instant case, the AGMOD calculations incorporated 87 years of rainfall data and its results reflect the quantities necessary in the event of a two-in-ten-year drought. Similarly, the AGMOD calculations in the instant case take into account the change in irrigation efficiency from 65 percent to 75 percent. Behrens suggested that Boran should not be allowed to use any more water until minimum flows and levels are established for the intermediate aquifer in the vicinity. However, Behrens could cite no authority for imposing such a moratorium. Meanwhile, the more persuasive evidence was that no such moratorium would be reasonable or appropriate. See Finding 49 and Conclusion 86, infra. Behrens also suggested that inputs to AGMOD should assume more Bahia and less St. Augustine grass so as to reduce the resulting amount of reasonable demand. He also suggested that Boran's reasonable demand should not take into account possible future increases in St. Augustine grass production based on possible future market demand increases. But it does not appear that the District requires an applicant to differentiate among various types of grasses when inputting the crop type variable into the AGMOD model for purposes of determining reasonable demand. See Water Use Permit Information Manual, Part C, Design Aids (District Exhibit 2C), Table D-1, p. C4-9. The evidence proved that Boran demonstrated that the proposed use will not cause quantity or quality changes that adversely impact the water resources, on either an individual or cumulative basis, including both surface and ground waters, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(b). Data from water quality monitoring reports indicate that water quality at Boran Ranch and in the region has remained fairly consistent. There were no statistically significant declining trend in water levels in the region. Behrens admitted that water quality in his well has been consistently good. One apparent increase in total dissolved solids and chlorides in DID #1 was explained as being a reporting error. Boran inadvertently reported some findings from DID #2 as coming from DID #1. Until the error was corrected, this made it appear that water quality from DID #1 had decreased because, while DID #1 is open only to the intermediate aquifer, DID #2 is open to both the intermediate aquifer and the upper Florida aquifer, which has poorer water quality. Both Boran and the District used the MODFLOW model, a generally accepted tool in the field of hydrogeology, to analyze withdrawal impacts. The purpose of modeling is to evaluate impacts of a proposed use on the aquifer tapped for withdrawals, and any overlying aquifers including surficial aquifers connected to lakes and wetlands. MODFLOW uses mathematics to simulate the different aquifer parameters for each production unit determined from aquifer performance testing. During the permit application process, both Boran and the District conducted groundwater modeling by simply adding the proposed new quantities to models developed for Boran's permit application in 1999. The models were comparable but not identical; the District's model was somewhat more detailed in that it separated predicted drawdowns into more aquifer producing units. Both models satisfied the District that the proposed modification would have no adverse impact on water resources. After the challenge to the Proposed Agency Action, the District created a new model to assess the impact of only the additional quantities requested by the modification. This new model added some aquifer parameters obtained from Regional Observation Monitoring Program (ROMP) well 9.5, which was constructed very close to the Boran Ranch in 1999. (Information from ROMP 9.5 was not available at the time of the earlier models.) The new model allowed the District to limit the scope of its review to those changes proposed by the modification. The results of this model show that impacts are localized and that most are within the confines of Boran’s property. The greatest impacts resulting from the proposed modification would occur in the Suwannee Limestone producing unit (the upper-most portion of the upper Floridan aquifer), the unit to be tapped by DID #6. The confining unit above the upper Floridan aquifer in this region of DeSoto County is approximately 300-400 feet thick, and impacts on the intermediate aquifer, which is above this confining unit, are much less. When the District's new model was run for peak monthly withdrawals (423,900 gpd for 90 days), the model's 1.0 foot drawdown contour was contained within the confines of Boran’s property, and the 0.1 foot drawdown contour extended only approximately two miles out from the well node of DID #6. Atmospheric barometric changes can cause fluctuations in aquifer levels that exceed a tenth of a foot. As minimal as these modeled impacts appear to be, they are larger than would be expected in reality. This is because, for several reasons, MODFLOW is a conservative model- -i.e., impacts modeled are greater than impacts that would be likely in actuality. First, MODFLOW is a mathematical, asyntopic model. This means it models very gradually decreasing drawdowns continuing over long distances as predicted drawdowns approach zero. This tends to over-predict impacts at greater distances from the withdrawal. In reality, the heterogeneity or discontinuity of confining units cuts down on drawdown effects. The steepest drawdowns occur at a well node and then decline relatively rapidly with distance. Second, several model inputs are conservative. The annual average quantities for water use generated under the AGMOD methodology is based on a two-in-ten-year drought year. The peak month quantity applies to the three driest months within the two-in-ten-year drought period. The MODFLOW model applies this 90-day peak usage continuous pumping under AGMOD and conservatively assumes no rainfall or recharge to the aquifers during this period. Both of these are extremely conservative assumptions for this region of Florida. The District's determination of reasonable assurances "on both an individual and a cumulative basis" in water use permit cases only considers the sum of the impact of the applicant's proposal, together with all other existing impacts (and perhaps also the impacts of contemporaneous applicants). The impacts of future applicants are not considered. This differs from the cumulative impact review under Part IV of Chapter 373 (environmental resource permitting). See Conclusions 80-84, infra. Modeling is a component of the District’s assessment of impacts on a cumulative basis. In addition, the District reviewed and assessed hydrographs of the potentiometric surface from nearby ROMP wells, water quality data, permit history of the Boran site, and regional hydrologic conditions. The hydrographs represent the accumulation of all impacts from pumpage in the area and show stable groundwater levels in the region. Water quality also is stable, with no declining trends. The permit history indicates that permitted withdrawals on the Boran site have declined. For all of these reasons, the evidence was that Boran's proposed withdrawals would create no adverse impacts on water resources on a cumulative basis. The evidence proved that the proposed agency action will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c). Due to the significant confinement between the source aquifers and the surficial aquifer and surface water bodies, the modeling results show no adverse impact to the surficial aquifer, and no adverse impact to wetlands, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources. The evidence was that there are no minimum flows or levels set for the area in question. Furthermore, Standard Condition 9 of the Proposed Agency Action requires Boran to cease or reduce withdrawals as directed by the District if water levels should fall below any minimum level later established by the District. The more persuasive evidence was that the requirements of section 4.3 of the District's Basis of Review have been met. (A moratorium on water use permits until establishment of minimum flows and levels would be neither reasonable nor appropriate.) The evidence proved that the proposed use will utilize the lowest water quality he has the ability to use, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(e), because the new withdrawals are exclusively from the upper Floridan aquifer, which has poorer quality than the intermediate aquifer. Deeper aquifers cannot be used because the water quality is poorer than the upper Floridan aquifer, and it is technically and economically infeasible to use it for agricultural purposes. Behrens suggests that Boran should be required to discontinue all withdrawals of higher quality water from the intermediate aquifer as part of the proposed modification. While an offer to do so might be welcomed (as was Boran's offer to install subsurface seepage irrigation and apply the higher efficiency percentage to the entire Boran Ranch), Behrens could cite no authority for imposing such a condition; and the more persuasive evidence was that imposition of such a condition would be neither reasonable nor appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(f), because the model results show that the drawdown contours do not approach anywhere near the ETBWUCA or MIA areas. Boran's Ranch is located approximately 21 miles from the MIA boundary and 10.8 miles from ETBWUCA boundary. Further, Boran must monitor the water quality in DID #1 and DID #4 and document any changes in water quality as a result of the withdrawals. The parties have stipulated that the proposed use meets the requirements of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(g) and will not cause pollution of the aquifer. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(h), because the modeling showed no impact to the surficial aquifer or land use outside Boran Ranch. The confinement between the point of withdrawal and the surface is too great to impact offsite land uses in the instant case. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not adversely impact any existing legal withdrawal, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), based on the ROMP hydrographs and modeling showing minimal drawdowns outside the boundaries of Boran Ranch. Behrens claims that Boran's proposed modification will adversely impact his well, which is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the northeast corner of the Boran property and over four miles away from DID #6. But the greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. (The wells of other DCAP members were even further away, making impacts even less likely.) Behrens has no independent knowledge of the depth of his two-inch well but believes it is approximately 150 feet deep, which would place it within the intermediate aquifer. In view of the consistent quality of Behrens' well water, and the nature of his well construction, it is most likely that Behrens' well does not penetrate the confining layer between the intermediate aquifer and the upper Floridan aquifer. If 150 feet deep, Behrens' well would not extend into the deepest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-3); rather, it would appear to extend into the next deepest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-2). But it is possible that Behrens' well cross-connects the PZ-2 and the shallowest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-1). (The evidence did not even rule out the possibility that Behrens' well also is open to the surficial aquifer.) Assuming that Behrens' well is open to the PZ-2 only, conservative MODFLOW modeling predicts no impact at all from the proposed modification. (Behrens' well would be outside the zero drawdown contour.) Meanwhile, hydrographs of PZ-2 from nearby ROMP wells show marked fluctuations (five-foot oscillations) of the potentiometric surfaces in producing units of the intermediate aquifer. These fluctuations appear to coincide with increased pumping out of the intermediate aquifer. These fluctuations in the potentiometric surface are not being transmitted up from the upper Floridan aquifer or down from the surficial aquifer. The potentiometric surface in those aquifers do not exhibit matching fluctuations. It appears that the intermediate aquifer is being impacted almost exclusively by pumping out of that aquifer. (This evidence also confirms the integrity of the relatively thick confining layer between the intermediate and the upper Floridan aquifers, which serves to largely insulate Behrens' well from the influence of pumping out of the upper Floridan.) Behrens seems to contend that, in order to determine adverse impacts on a cumulative basis, the impact of Boran's entire withdrawal, existing and proposed, which is modeled conservatively at approximately 0.3 feet, must be considered. But the District considers an adverse impact to an existing legal withdrawal to consist of an impact large enough to necessitate modification to the producing well in order for it to continue to function as intended. The greater weight of the evidence was that the well on Behrens' property was not designed to be a free-flowing well but was designed to use a pump to operate as intended. At the time Behrens purchased his property, there was a well and a non-functioning pump on the property. Even at the beginning of his ownership, he did not always have running water without a functioning pump. In approximately 1986 or 1987, Behrens installed a new electric pump because it allowed the well to produce more water. After installation of the pump, Behrens raised his trailer an additional five feet (to guard against flooding) which caused it to be approximately ten feet high, meaning the water had to travel that much farther against gravity to reach Behrens' faucets. For most of the time that he has owned the property, Behrens has used a pump on the well. Behrens installed a check valve to allow him to turn off the pump. Sometimes during storm or flood conditions, electric power failed or was cut off, and Behrens was forced to rely solely on artesian flow, which was sometimes adequate in flood conditions during the rainy season. At other times when artesian flow was adequate, Behrens would turn off the pump and rely solely on artesian flow. But it also was sometimes necessary for Behrens to use the pump to get adequate water flow. During the summer of 2001, Behrens' pump failed, and he had to rely solely on artesian flow. As in prior years, artesian flow was sometimes inadequate. In order to be able to get at least some artesian flow for the maximum amount of time, Behrens lowered the spigot on his well by about two feet. Although Behrens is aware that the iron casing of his well could corrode over time, he has never called a licensed well driller or other contractor to inspect his well. Behrens did not test his own well for possible blockage that would result in a lower yield. Furthermore, Behrens admits that his whole outdoor water system needs to be completely replaced. The evidence proved that the proposed use will incorporate water conservation measures, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(k), based on the water conservation plan submitted to the District, installation of a state-of-the-art irrigation system, increase in efficient use of the water, and decrease in the application rate. (Behrens' arguments that Boran has been allowed to use too much water and his question as to the existence of hardpan underlying Boran's fields already has been addressed. See Findings 27 and 35, supra.) The parties have stipulated that Boran has demonstrated that the proposed use will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(l). The evidence proved that the proposed use will not cause water to go to waste, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(m), because the irrigation method is the most efficient system that is economically and technically feasible available for sod. (Behrens' question as to the existence of hardpan underlying Boran's fields already has been addressed. See Finding 27, supra.) The evidence proved that the proposed use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources of the District, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(n), based on the review of all other permit criteria. Propriety of Behrens' Purpose Behrens did not review the District's permit file on Boran's application before he filed his petition. The evidence suggested that he traveled to the District's Sarasota office for that purpose but found on his arrival that the complete permit file was not available for inspection there. Because of the filing deadline, he did not find time to make another attempt to review the permit file of record before he filed his petition. Behrens also did not contact Boran, the District or anyone else with any questions about the proposed agency action before filing his petition. He also did not visit Boran’s property, and made no inquiry as to the irrigation system employed by Boran. Behrens also did not do any additional legal research (beyond what he had done in connection with other water use permit proceedings) before filing his petition. Behrens believed he had all the information he needed to file his petition. Behrens has previously filed at least one unsuccessful petition challenging the District’s issuance of a water use permit. See Behrens v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 00-4801 (DOAH Jan. 29, 2001). DCAP, with Behrens acting as its president, has previously filed at least three unsuccessful petitions challenging the District’s issuance of a water use permit. See, e.g., DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Farmland Hydro Limited Partnership, DOAH Case No. 02-232 (Southwest Fla. Water Man. Dist. June 25, 2002); DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 01- 3056 (DOAH Aug. 22, 2001); DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 01-2917 (DOAH Sept. 24, 2001). However, none of those proceedings involved a project at the Boran site. It is found that, under the totality of circumstances, Behrens' and DCAP's participation in this proceeding was not for an improper purpose--i.e., not primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of Boran's permit modification. While a reasonable person would not have raised and pursued some of the issues raised by Behrens and DCAP in this proceeding, it cannot be found that all of the issues they raised were frivolous or that their participation in this proceeding was for an improper purpose. It appears that Behrens based his standing in part on the requirement in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i) that Boran provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal to be provided "on both an individual and a cumulative basis.” (Emphasis added.) Not unreasonably, Behrens argued that this requirement allowed him to base his standing on alleged injuries from all of Boran's withdrawals, existing and proposed, which would create a 0.3- foot drawdown on his well. While his argument is rejected, it cannot be found to be frivolous or made for improper purpose. Behrens' argument that Boran did not meet Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(i) was based on the 0.3-foot drawdown and his position that his well was designed to be artesian free- flowing. While Behrens' proposed finding was rejected, the position he took is not found to be frivolous or taken for improper purpose. Several other arguments made and positions taken by Behrens have been rejected. See Findings 27, 34, 35, and 51, supra, and Conclusions 86-87, infra. But they cannot all be found to have been frivolous or made and taken for improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter an order granting Boran’s water use permit application number 20009478.005; and denying the motions for attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. Jurisdiction is reserved to enter a final order on the part of the motions for sanctions under Section 120.569(2)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 29th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan R. Behrens, President DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail Arcadia, Florida 34266 Mary Beth Russell, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1982, Petitioner filed with Respondent a dredge and fill permit application to remove gates and wing-walls from a double-lock canal system presently installed at the Palmetto Point Subdivision in Lee County, Florida, adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. On January 6, 1983, Respondent sent a "completeness summary" to Petitioner, along with a letter advising Petitioner that its permit application was incomplete, and requesting additional information. Petitioner responded to the January 6, 1983, completeness summary by submitting additional information to Respondent on or about February 23, 1983. On March 21, 1983, Respondent sent a second completeness summary requesting further additional information from Petitioner. By letter dated May 18, 1983, Petitioner's attorney advised Respondent that submission of additional requested hydrographic information and water quality data was not justified. The letter further advised that Petitioner intended to rely on the information already submitted, and requested, pursuant to Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes, that Respondent begin processing the permit application. The letter further indicated that petitioner was submitting under separate cover a request that Respondent apply the "moderating provisions" of Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, to the application. The aforementioned rule is entitled "Mixing Zones: Surface Waters." Also on May 18, 1983, Petitioner's counsel sent another letter to Respondent requesting the aforementioned "Mixing Zone." The letter requested the "maximum mixing zone" allowed under the applicable Provisions of Rule 17- 4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had not requested a mixing zone be applied to the permit application prior to the request contained in its May 18, 1983, letter. By letter dated June 17, 1983 Respondent, in response to Petitioner's May 18, 1983, letters, advised that: The additional information [which] was received on May 19, 1983, was reviewed; however, the items listed on the attached sheet remain incomplete. Evaluation of your proposed project will continue to be delayed until we receive all requested information. Respondent's June 17, 1983, letter included a completeness summary, which asked for additional information, including the following requests concerning mixing zones: Your request for a mixing zone is applicable pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-4.244(6). Please provide a map indicating the outermost radius of the mixing zone (no more than 150 meters) and the period of time required. The completeness summary acknowledged Petitioner's refusal to supply additional information concerning hydrographic data and water quality information, and indicated that Respondent would evaluate the project accordingly. By letter dated August 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had been 73 days since notification of the incompleteness of the permit application with regard to the mixing zone request. This letter requested Petitioner to advise Respondent if it wished to withdraw the application, request additional time, or discuss questions regarding the application. The Petitioner did not respond to this communication. On September 9, 1983, Petitioner's attorney forwarded a letter to Respondent requesting a default permit pursuant to Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes. Until this letter, other than a prior oral communication on September 2, 1983, notifying Respondent that the default request was forthcoming, Petitioner had not contacted Respondent concerning the permit application since its May 18, 1983, letters. On October 13, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that the mixing zone request constituted a revision of the application and that the information received to evaluate the mixing zone request was incomplete. Petitioner was also advised that since the additional information requested had not been received, the application remained incomplete and Petitioner was not entitled to a default permit. Whether or not a mixing zone is applied to a permit application is significant because it determines where state water quality standards must be met, either adjacent to the proposed project, or up to 150 meters away from the project location. Under Rule 17-4.244(6), Florida Administrative Code, the 150 meter radius is measured from the point of generation of turbidity or pollution. Since the two locks to be removed were 80 feet apart, it was unclear whether Petitioner intended the point of generation for measuring the radius of the mixing zone to be the northern lock, the southern lock, or some other point. It is equally unclear whether Petitioner intended the mixing zone to extend south into the canal as well as north into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioner never contacted Respondent to clarify the dimensions of the mixing zone being sought, even after Respondent requested a map indicating the outermost limits of the mixing zone in the June 17, 1983, completeness summary.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners filed separate, although virtually identical, applications with the Department in February, 1983 to construct separate catwalks from their properties, with platforms at the end of each catwalk. The dimensions of each catwalk were to be three feet by 350 feet, and the platform dimensions were to be six feet by twelve feet. This construction was to take place through a marsh and mangrove wetland and tidal creek known as Andrews Creek. Petitioner's properties adjoin and are in the interior of the creek. Intervenor's property is located at the mouth of Andrews Creek where it intersects a canal, and borders that area of the creek through which Petitioners proposed to construct their catwalks and platforms. On March 9, 1983 the Department notified Petitioners that a permit would be required for their project pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., that their applications were incomplete, and that approval from the Department of Natural Resources in the form of a "consent of use of state-owned land" might be required. Petitioners provided additional information in support of their application, but were again notified on April 5, 1983 that Department of Natural Resources consent or approval was necessary in order to complete their application file. The Department prepared a permit application appraisal report on June 13, 1983 without the benefit of an on-site inspection for these applications. The appraisal was based upon written materials submitted by Petitioners in their applications. The appraisal recommended approval, noting that a single joint access facility would be preferable to the dual catwalk and platform configuration proposed by Petitioners As a result of this appraisal, the Department notified the Department of Natural Resources on July 1, 1983 that it intended to issue permits to the Petitioners but that it needed a response from the Department of Natural Resources concerning consent of use or approval pursuant to Section 253.77, F.S. Final action on Petitioners' applications could not take place until the Department received a reply from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners received a copy of this notice which was sent from the Department to the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioner was again notified on August 29, 1983 that consent or approval from the Department of Natural Resources was required before the Department's approval could be given. The August 29 letter also stated that Petitioners would have to obtain a letter of authorization and affidavit of ownership from any property owner, other than Petitioners themselves, whose property would be crossed by their construction. In response, Petitioners submitted to the Department an approval they received from the local homeowner's association, but this approval was not issued in compliance with the association's by-laws, and was therefore not a valid authorization and consent to the use of whatever interest the association has in Andrews Creek. On December 5, 1933 Petitioners notified the Department that they were amending their applications to eliminate the platforms at the end of their respective catwalks. On or about January 3, 1984 the Department of Natural Resources suggested to the Department that public notice of this project be given due to the type and location of the project. The Department notified Petitioners on January 26, 1984 that since numerous property owners might be affected by their project, a public notice would have to be published. In response to such publication, the Department received letters from other property owners on Andrews Creek which both opposed and supported Petitioners' project. At about the same time, the Department learned that Petitioners had already constructed their catwalks, with one large platform joining the ends of both catwalks. This construction took place despite the lack of either a permit from the Department or consent/approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners' applications indicate the use of six inch pilings and a portable jet pump with a one inch jet nozzle in the construction of their project. The Department performed a field inspection of the site and issued a permit application appraisal report dated May 3, 1984 which recommended denial of the permit applications while also confirming that the project had already been constructed. Denial was recommended since the dimensions of the actual construction exceeded the project dimensions described in the applications, considerable clearing of mangroves had taken place although the applications stated no such clearing would be required, and the adverse impact on water quality, marine productivity and other environmental factors the two catwalks were found to terminate with a large platform thirty-eight feet long by ten feet wide, with Zembillas' catwalk being 417.5 feet in length and Starzak's being 398 feet long. The combined project has a total square footage of approximately 3700 square feet, with each catwalk exceeding the permit exemption dimensions of 1000 square feet. Andrews Creek has been designated a conservation area and therefore the clearing and resulting damage to the mangrove community resulting from this project is particularly significant. As part of a permitting action in 1972 the State of Florida, through he Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, negotiated with Lindrick Corporation, the developer of the residential area surrounding Andrews Creek, to preserve certain areas from development. The Board of Trustees issued a permit to Lindrick Corporation "to perform certain works in the navigable waters of the State of Florida" which allowed half of Andrews Creek to be filled and which preserved the other half that remains today as a conservation area. The conservation area was to be protected from development. Thereafter, the Lindrick Corporation entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association whereby association approval would be required for development in the conservation area. Petitioners' project, as constructed, shades a larger area than it would have if built in accordance with their applications. Shading of wetlands can reduce dissolved oxygen levels of a wetland and thereby reduce the area's productivity. Although Petitioners offered a laboratory report showing exceedingly high dissolved oxygen levels in Andrews Creek, it appears that the sampling technique used resulted in the aeration of the sample which therefore did not reflect the true level of dissolved oxygen. Intervenor testified that he purchased his property because of the designation of Andrews Creek as a conservation area, and the resulting privacy of such a natural habitat. Petitioners' construction has obstructed Intervenor's view of the water and wetlands area of Andrews Creek, and infringes on this privacy due to the close proximity of Petitioners' platform to Intervenor's property. The catwalk is twelve to fourteen feet from the boundary of Intervenor's property. The portion of Andrews Creek crossed by Petitioners' project is navigable according to testimony presented, and as recognized in 1972 when a dredging permit was issued to the developer, Lindrick Corporation. The portion in question includes the original tidal creek, which is a tributary of the Gulf of Mexico via an excavated channel. Navigability of the creek has been adversely affected by this project. There would be a significant, adverse, cumulative effect on Andrews Creek if other surrounding property owners decided to construct docks similar to Petitioners' since this would involve additional clearing of mangroves, a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water due to extensive shading, and the further elimination of the creek's navigability. There are eighteen (18) property owners on Andrews Creek, including Petitioners and the Intervenor, and there is a reasonable likelihood that other homeowners will apply for permits to construct similar docks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that: Petitioners permit applications be DENIED. Petitioners shall have forty-five (45) days from rendition of the Final Order in this case to remove their dock, consisting of catwalks, a connecting platform and support pilings. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas M. Zembillas 2001 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Martha Harrell Hall Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. L. Starzak 2003 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The first issue is whether Petitioner, Jacqueline M. Lane (Lane) has standing. The second issue is whether International Paper Company (IP) provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to meet the conditions of the existing industrial wastewater permit for the wastewater treatment facility at the paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, pursuant to Rule 62- 620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. A final issue is whether Lane litigated this matter for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: The Parties The Department is charged with the responsibility for determining whether to approve the Application for transfer of permit number FL0002562-002-IWF/MT from Champion to IP. IP is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. IP operates a bleach kraft fine paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, formerly operated by Champion. Lane is a citizen of the State of Florida who lives on Perdido Bay. Application for Transfer of Industrial Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT In June 2000, IP notified the Department it was acquiring Champion as a wholly owned subsidiary. IP took over operation of the facility in Cantonment on January 1, 2001. At that time, the companies had fully merged. On January 19, 2001, IP timely submitted an Application for Transfer of a Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit (Application) and advised the Department that "the permittee name for the pulp and paper mill in Cantonment, Florida[,] has been changed from 'Champion International Corporation, Inc.' to 'International Paper Company.'" Several wastewater permit- related documents were submitted to the Department as part of this name change. The Department processed IP's Application to transfer the facility's permit pursuant to Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. "The parties agree that this matter is controlled by Rules 62-4.120 and 62-620.340, F.A.C., regarding the transfer of the permit. The parties [did not agree] upon what conditions of the combined permits are applicable to determine whether the Department has received 'reasonable assurances that the conditions of the permit will be met.' Rule 62-620.340(3), F.A.C." Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "The Department shall allow the transfer under subsection (2) of this section unless it determines that the proposed permittee cannot provide reasonable assurance that conditions of the permit will be met. The determination shall be limited solely to the ability of the proposed permittee to comply with the conditions of the existing permit, and it shall not consider the adequacy of these permit conditions." (Emphasis added). This proceeding does not involve an enforcement action or consideration of whether the wastewater permit, and related documents, should be renewed. Champion's renewal application is under consideration by the Department. The parties agree that the documents described in Findings of Fact 10-19, infra, set forth the conditions of the permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT at this time. These documents are listed below: November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State- issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) January 3,1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit December 1, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance The Permit(s), Consent Order, Variances, and Related Permit Documents Before May 1, 1995, in order to operate the wastewater treatment facility at the mill in Cantonment, both state and federal permits were required. The Department or its predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), issued state permits pursuant to Sections 403.08 and 403.088, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulation Section 124.15. As a result of EPA's delegation of its NPDES authority to the Department in 1995, only one permit is now required. The 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department does not allow the Department to modify a permit that has been administratively continued. Modifications to permit limits have to be made through the permit renewal process. On or about January 3, 1983, the EPA issued a NPDES permit to St. Regis Paper Company, authorizing discharge from the facility, located at the paper mill in Cantonment to the receiving waters named Eleven Mile Creek (creek). This NPDES permit contains the federal permit conditions applicable at this time. (EPA has since used the facility as a benchmark model to develop effluent guidelines for its new cluster rule.) On December 1, 1989, the DER entered into a Consent Order with Champion International Corporation. This Consent Order was issued as a result of Recommended and Final Orders issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. et al. v. Champion International Corporation and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 F.A.L.R. 126 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). This Consent Order allowed the continued operation of the facility. As a compliance requirement, a study report was required to include "an evaluation of technologies and treatment alternatives . . . to determine the most environmentally sound and practicable means to correct identified water quality violations caused by Champion." The studies required by the Consent Order are needed to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and Perdido Bay (bay). The Consent Order has no expiration date although it is tied to the temporary operating permit (TOP) which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Extensive studies have been submitted to the Department pursuant to paragraph 14.A. of the Consent Order, which are necessary to trigger "the final compliance plan." This has been an ongoing process since the Consent Order and TOP were issued. The conditions in the Consent Order and TOP apply at this time. Various discharge limitations and monitoring requirements are set forth in the TOP. On December 13, 1989, DER issued a TOP, Number IT17- 156163, to the facility, which was issued in conjunction with the Consent Order. The TOP expressly relies on the Consent Order for authorization. It contains the effective state permit conditions at this time. On December 8, 1989, DER issued a Variance from water quality standards for color (transparency), iron, zinc, and the general water quality criterion for specific conductance. The standards in the Variance are part of the TOP and are effective at this time. The mill no longer needs the Variance for iron and zinc. As to those parameters, it currently operates at lower levels than under the Variance. On November 15, 1995, the Department combined the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. The TOP and NPDES permit were administratively continued when renewal applications were filed. The Department will transfer to IP the permit documents described in Finding of Fact 9, supra. The Department will also transfer the pending permit renewal applications filed by Champion. Wastewater Treatment Facility at the Paper Mill in Cantonment, Florida In the past, Champion owned and operated a 1400-ton per day bleach and kraft pulp and paper mill in Cantonment. The operation is now conducted by IP. The paper mill treats its effluent from industrial activities at an on-site wastewater treatment facility (facility). Stormwater that falls on the industrial portion of the mill is also processed through the facility. The mill is required to and takes monthly samples from the creek for a few parameters, e.g., DO and pH, to provide data to the Department for use in developing possible changes to effluent limitations in a final compliance plan. There is an installed structure that continuously measures the flow of the effluent at the end of the facility's treatment system. This point, i.e., where the flow is measured, is called the Parshall Flume which is the compliance point for the facility. The effluent at Parshall Flume is automatically sampled each day, analyzed, and reported on a monthly basis to the Department. The analyses are reviewed and compared to the effluent limitations for a particular permit. The treated effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to natural wetlands. In this wetland area, the treated effluent combines with several streams, non- processed stormwater, and runoff from land south and west of the facility. Runoff from residential areas and areas west of the mill, including the City of Cantonment, also flows into this area. The IP mill is not the only source of discharge into this area. After passing through the natural wetlands, the treated effluent runs through a pipe that discharges into the creek from below the surface. This point is about a half-mile from the facility. It is called the "boil" because the water from the pipe boils up into the creek. The "boil" is not a compliance point. On occasion, a Department inspector has taken water samples at the boil. Each time, his sampling has shown water quality standards were met at the boil. At the boil, the water flowing into the creek from the pipe contains treated effluent and drainage from areas not associated with the mill. From the boil, the creek flows a distance of fourteen miles to Perdido Bay (the bay). At the boil, there is also stormwater runoff and drainage from residential areas flowing into the creek in addition to the water from the pipe. Along the sides of the creek to the bay is a large drainage basin, which includes agricultural and residential runoff that flows into the creek. The boil, which is non-processed stormwater of the creek, could be contaminated from non-IP sources. Sources of pollutants in the bay include residential and agricultural stormwater runoff, Perdido River, and the creek. The Escambia County Utility Authority (ECUA) also has a treatment plant that has a discharge into the bay. Saltwater intrusion and runoff from development are additional sources of pollutants in the bay. Lane takes samples at the boil and most recently in May and June of 2001. Her measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO) was approximately 2.6 and for specific conductance, between 1600 and 2000. Lane also samples the water at a bridge (279A) two miles down the creek from the boil. Lane testified regarding bacteriological quality at the boil or further down stream, that fecal coliforms, including the bacteria Klebsiella, were present. Lane is not a certified sampler. She does not have the required quality control/quality assurance program. Lane does not know the Department requirements to sample dissolved oxygen. She could not describe an approved standard for such sampling. Surface Water Quality Standards Unless otherwise provided through relief mechanisms, discharges into surface waters must meet the minimum water quality standards set forth in Rules 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. Relief mechanisms include variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits. The Department has issued variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits to allow permit holders time to respond to changes in water quality standards and related regulations that reflect changes in understanding of environmental impacts to water bodies. Permit Conditions The permit conditions do not require compliance with all the water quality criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, for water quality parameters. The Department has not yet agreed on "final treatment solutions" it can require under the Consent Order. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 49. Specific deviations from the surface water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are authorized by the Consent Order, TOP, variance, and NPDES permit. The specific effluent discharge limitations in the TOP and NPDES permit, are for BOD5, TSS, iron, specific conductance, pH, and zinc. (The reference to condition 12 in paragraph 25 of the TOP has not been amended.) Several of the effluent limitations (e.g., specific conductance) were granted by the Variance. Paragraph 26 of the TOP specifies the monitoring and frequency requirements for the monitoring at the Parshall Flume. This monitoring information can be used by the Department to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and in order to establish numerical, water-quality based effluent limitations for those sources. General Condition 5 of the TOP does not per se impose on the mill the duty to meet all water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. The TOP authorizes "a certain amount of pollution" and "certain relief." The TOP further established a "compliance schedule" for Champion to study the impacts of the discharge. However, the Department rules allow for reopening of the TOP and changing the permit conditions to reflect new evidence causing a concern regarding pollution. Here, the Department has not reopened the TOP. The permit, including the TOP and Consent Order, allows the mill a period of time to come into compliance with all minimum water quality standards. When a final permit is eventually issued, the facility will have to meet these standards absent some express relief mechanism at that time. IP Provided Reasonable Assurances of Its Ability to Meet Permit Conditions The Department employee who reviewed IP's Application to transfer the permit is an expert in environmental engineering. At the time he reviewed the Application, he was familiar with the existing permit conditions. As part of his review, he ascertained whether IP was satisfying the conditions of the permit and determined it was. The Department reviewed IP's annual report and other corporate brochures as part of its processing of the transfer Application. Information in these documents revealed IP has obtained other Federal-type NPDES permits for other companies at several other facilities. The Department was familiar with IP's local management at the Cantonment facility when it processed the transfer Application. IP brings considerable "capability and talent" to the mill. The Department performed inspections during the last six (6) months and was familiar with the facility and wastewater system. IP is an international company with greater financial resources than Champion. It has approximately $30 billion in annual sales. Champion, in comparison, generated about $5 billion a year. It is clear that that the operation of the mill and the facility would have less capital and financial support without IP. Since June 2000, IP has worked with the Department in a continuation of the Department's concept of relocating the facility's discharge to wetlands. The plan considers removal of the facility's treated effluent from the creek to wetlands on IP's land and effectively eliminates it as a point source discharge and removes the discharge from the creek. IP will have a greater ability than Champion to meet permit conditions due to greater financial sources, technical staff, and resources. IP's management is committed to resolving water quality issues like specific conductance and is willing to resolve outstanding water quality issues in the bay and creek. In the view of the former Northwest District Director who worked on water quality issues at the facility for twelve years ending March 31, 2001, the current plan to discharge to wetlands will be implemented and allow compliance with all water quality standards. He also opines that IP has the ability to comply with water quality standards under the plan to discharge to wetlands. In the Department's view, IP has provided reasonable assurances that it has the ability to meet the existing conditions of the permit sought to be transferred. IP Complies with Permit Conditions as Evidence of Ability According to the Department's expert, Mr. William A. Evans, a professional engineer with a Master's degree in civil engineering and an expert in environmental engineering, there have been no verifiable violations of permit conditions and no exceedances since January 2000, before IP took over operations of the mill. On the other hand, Mr. Evans, in reviewing a discharge monitoring report for IP for April 2001, advised, during cross-examination, that there appeared to be "an apparent violation, exceedance of the permit" for specific conductance pursuant to the 1500 micromhons per centimeter limit in the EPA's version of the permit. However, the Variance, which is part of the Application, was granted "because there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved," i.e., specific conductance. The Department applies the limit of 2500 micromhos per centimeter set forth in the Variance for specific conductance, which is a reasonable interpretation of the permit documents. When the permit documents, including the Variance are read in this light, IP is in compliance with this limit. IP is in compliance with the Consent Order, NPDES permit, and Variance. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful of Lane's arguments and facts presented. The issue here is not black or white; violation or no violation. As noted by Mr. Evans: This permit is recognized since '89 is [sic] not meeting water quality standards. It has all these documents because it doesn't. And they're still working under those. And the Department agrees with Ms. Lane that they are not meeting water quality standards in the creek. And we're working under these documents to make improvements. And so is Champion and so is IP. But they are not, in our opinion, violating the conditions of the permit. There [sic] are complying with studying it, meeting the interim limits that are set forth in the permit. And that is what the Statutes require when a facility can not meet all the standards of a permit. The Department, while considering the renewal application, has not approved it yet because they have not received reasonable assurances that new permit conditions can be met. Champion, and now IP, are facing the continuing challenge of satisfying, among other requirements, water quality standards, which takes time, money, and know-how. The Department rightly believes that IP can best meet this challenge. The Department's review of the monthly monitoring reports submitted by the mill since Champion was purchased reveals the facility has complied with permit conditions. The most recent monthly report was submitted May 23, 2001, and includes data through April 2001. During inspections at the facility since June 2000, the Department found no violations of permit conditions. The mill, under IP's operation, has not exceeded the fecal coliform conditions of its permit. The mill has no significant contribution to fecal coliform in the creek because it treats its own domestic sewage and meets the fecal coliform limit at the compliance point. Runoff along the creek from agricultural and domestic sources could contribute to fecal and total coliform in the creek. The Department enforces the "more stringent" pH condition in the 1989 TOP and Variance which is controlling over the less stringent standard in the 1983 NPDES permit. The pH limit in the NPDES permit is 6.0-9.0. The Department reasonably interprets the freshwater stream pH rule to mean enforcement is not required if the permittee meets the range in the rule (6.0-8.5), more stringent than the 9.0 limit in the NPDES permit. The facility's pH data satisfies this range. If the Department were to enforce a limit of 6.5, instead of 8.5, IP has the ability to meet the lower limit by installing one of several available technologies to control the pH levels. IP's current proposal includes one of these technologies. The biological integrity provision in the Consent Order requires studies on biological components of the creek and pH impacts this condition. Permit Conditions Affecting the Creek and Bay The permit does not require the facility to meet all the minimum surface water quality standards of Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, in the creek and bay. That is because of the relief mechanisms in the Consent Order, TOP, NPDES permit, and Variance. The Consent Order provides a time frame for the facility to come into compliance with water quality standards in the creek and bay. In terms of the Consent Order, the Department considers IP to be at the paragraph 14.A. step of the compliance schedule since the Department has not yet "resolved or agreed on the final corrective action required under this [C]onsent [O]rder." The Department considers the facility to be in compliance with permit conditions because it is "working under a complying [sic] schedule and an order or a temporary operating permit." See Finding of Fact 49. As long as IP is meeting the "interim limits that are set forth in the permit," it is not violating conditions of the permit. The Department is aware of water quality exceedances from the standards in the creek and bay caused by the mill. This data was reported in the "fifth year surveys." This information serves as a basis for making improvements and finding "a new solution for the effluent as required by the consent order." See Finding of Fact 49. Proposal for Joint Project with ECUA IP and the ECUA are working with the Department on a plan than would result in the discharge of IP's treated effluent to wetlands, thereby removing the effluent from the creek. IP's financial capability, size, and technical human resources make this plan feasible. IP will propose a plan to satisfy the Consent Order which consists of three parts: upgrading IP's industrial wastewater treatment facility; allowing ECUA to locate an advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant on its land; and disposing the treated effluent from both facilities to wetlands on IP's land through a pipeline. The proposed plan to discharge the facility's treated effluent to wetlands is a suitable solution that will allow the mill to meet minimum water quality standards. Lane has no objection to the plan to discharge to wetlands. It will resolve all her water quality issues. She believes the plan, similar to a prior plan, is "feasible." Standing and Improper Purpose Lane admits the Department is not making any changes to existing permit conditions before transferring it to IP. Lane agrees that changing the name on the permit from Champion to IP has no adverse affect on her. Lane brought this proceeding because she is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department is enforcing conditions in the facility's permit. According to Lane, "They haven't done their duty." Her main complaints are with the Department's failure to enforce the permit conditions and the lack of a permit that makes the permit holder comply with Florida law. Lane feels that Champion violated permit conditions in the past, and IP is currently violating permit conditions and, as a result, the permit should not be transferred because a decision to transfer is an implicit finding of compliance. In this light, Lane argues that past performance can be an indication of future ability or lack thereof. Lane acknowledges that in order to add conditions to the existing permit, the Department must provide notice to the mill and give it a chance to meet the proposed conditions. She further admits the Department has not provided such notice. Lane proved that the environmental situation attending Champion's, and now IP's, operation of the mill and the wastewater facility has been and is less than optimum and in need of positive changes. The Department agrees and so does IP. Lane's personal observations of the condition of the creek and bay are documented. However, Lane did not prove that she will suffer an "injury in fact" if the permit and related documents are transferred to IP. Lane is not otherwise substantially affected by the Department's decision to approve the transfer. Lane's evidence did not rebut IP and the Department's proof that IP has the ability to comply with the permit conditions. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the environment in and around the mill and the facility has a better opportunity for improvement if IP takes control of the mill and facility. On the other hand, based on this record, Lane did not bring this case for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Lane lacks standing to challenge the transfer of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT to IP because Lane did not prove that her substantial interests were being determined by the Department's transfer of the permit from Champion to IP; IP provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to comply with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT; IP has complied with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT, as the Department construes those conditions, since assuming control of the mill on January 1, 2001; and Lane did not participate in this administrative proceeding for an improper purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 24th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline M. Lane 10738 Lillian Highway Pensacola, Florida 32506 Terry Cole, Esquire Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 301 S. Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00451 seeks a consumptive water use permit for an existing use involving 14 withdrawal points. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 20.2584 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 45.8539 million gallons per day. The water will be used for citrus processing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above-referenced meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly, beginning on January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
Recommendation It is hereby Recommended that a consumptive use permit in the amounts and from the points set forth in the application be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Lykes Pasco Packing Company Post Office Box 97 Dade City, Florida
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 8, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health, including the county health departments such as the St. Lucie County Health Department ("County Health Department"), are responsible for supervising and controlling limited use public water systems. Section 381.0062(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Gorman is the owner of three duplexes located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; 140 and 142 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and 160 and 162 Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida. The duplexes were built in 1982 and 1983 and each contains two units which are available for rent. Water is piped into each duplex from a well located on the property. The wells providing water to 120 and 122 Laidback Way and to 140 and 142 Laidback Way were inspected by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in May 1994 and found to be satisfactory pending results of water tests. Two-day bacteriological analyses were conducted on May 2 and 3, 1994, on the wells serving these two properties, and the results were satisfactory. 3/ The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 120 and 122 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 30-gallon "p tank"; a 20-gallon water softener filter; and a 30-gallon brine tank. The 1994 inspection report for the well serving the property at 140 and 142 Laidback Way reflects that it had the following equipment: a one-half horsepower pump; a 20-gallon "p. tank"; a 25-gallon water softener filter; and a 40-gallon brine tank. In a letter dated August 21, 1998, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he needed to submit the application enclosed with the letter and a $140.00 fee to bring the "permit" to current status for the property located at 140 and 142 Laidback Way. The letter was inartfully composed and conveyed incomplete information regarding the nature of the permit. The letter did, however, contain reference to "Chapter" 381.0062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-8, Florida Administrative Code, and it also provided notification that Chapter 64E-8 required quarterly sampling of limited use public water systems for bacteria and a lead and nitrate test every three years. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman an identical notice, dated August 21, 1998, regarding the property located at 160 and 162 Laidback Way. The County Health Department sent Mr. Gorman a somewhat different letter, dated August 31, 1998, regarding the "Limited Use Public Water Systems" for the property located at 120 and 122 Laidback Way. The letter notified Mr. Gorman that his permit to operate the "referenced water system has expired as of September 30, 1998." The letter reiterated the information contained in the August 21 letter and requested in addition that Mr. Gorman submit "a minimum 8.5 x 11 inch site plan of the system, drawn to scale, that accurately identifies the location of the source of water in relation to property boundaries and contaminant sources, i.e., well must be 75 feet from septic system, etc." and an "[e]quipment list: pump, tank, softener, automatic chlorinate, etc., manufacturer, model #, and capacity." Finally, Mr. Gorman was notified of the permitting and testing fees and told that the "[a]pplication with required site and equipment information must be submitted with necessary fees within 30 days receipt of this notification." Mr. Gorman responded with a letter dated October 16, 1998, in which he posed several questions to the County Health Department: Do you understand that these are duplexes? Are all rental properties including single family subject to these regulations? Can you give me a valid reason why rental units of two units or more should be subject to quarterly bacterial testing (I believe the statute only authorizes it annually) and not all other residential properties, public facilities or otherwise that might use well water? Mr. Gorman requested a response to his questions but did not provide the information, applications, and permit fees requested in the letters dated August 21 and August 31. In a letter dated December 14, 1998, sent certified mail with return receipt requested and referenced as a Notice of Violation, the County Health Department notified Mr. Gorman that he was operating limited use community public water systems without a permit at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162 Laidback Way and that he had not provided the following required information: Signed, dated application form. An operation permit fee of $75.00 for the initial permit. A site plan of the property that accurately identifies the location of the well in relation to property, boundaries and contaminant sources such as septic tank systems. Capacity/size, model and brand information on system components. Well completion report if available or year well was installed if known. Required chemical analysis results (lead and nitrate). Initial satisfactory two-day source (well) water and system water bacteriological tests results. Mr. Gorman was told to contact Bruce McLeod within five days of receipt of the notice. Although Mr. Gorman received the notice on December 16, 1998, he did not respond. The County Health Department had not, as of the final hearing, received any reports of illness attributable to the water from the wells at the subject properties, and it does not have any reason to believe that the wells are contaminated. Mr. Gorman had not, as of the final hearing, submitted the applications, permit fees, or information requested by the County Health Department, and he had no operating permits for the wells providing water to the subject properties. The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that the wells providing water to the three duplexes owned and rented by Mr. Gorman each contains two rental units and are limited use community public water systems. Mr. Gorman must have operating permits for the wells providing water to these properties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: Finding that Robert J. Gorman is guilty of three violations of Section 381.0062, Florida Statutes (1997), because he failed to obtain operating permits for the limited use community public water systems he maintains at 120 and 122, 140 and 142, and 160 and 162, Laidback Way, Fort Pierce, Florida; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1500.00, or $500.00 for each of the three violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1999.
The Issue Whether proposed Water Use Permits Nos. 20012236.000 (the Potable Water Permit) and 20012239.000 (the Irrigation Permit) and proposed Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001 (the ERP) should be issued by the Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The individual Petitioners, Farnsworth, Roop, and Varnum are all Florida citizens and residents of Sumter County. None of the individual Petitioners offered any evidence relating to direct impacts that the ERP would have on their property. With respect to the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits, anecdotal testimony was presented by Petitioners and Wing and Weir relating to well failures and sinkholes in the area. Two Petitioners, Roop and Varnum, live in close proximity to the property encompassed by the three permits. Petitioner Farnsworth’s property is approximately three and a half miles from the project boundary. Wing and Weir live approximately four and a half to five and 18 miles from the project site, respectively. SCAID is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that has approximately 130 members. Farnsworth, the president of SCAID, identified only Roop and Varnum as members who will be directly affected by the activities to be authorized by the permits. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries. The Utility and the Authority are limited liability companies, of which the Villages Inc. is the managing partner. The Villages Inc. is a Florida corporation. The Utility, which will serve as a provider of potable water, is regulated by the Public Service Commission, while the Authority which will provide irrigation water, is not. The Villages Inc., Development The Villages Inc. is a phased, mixed use, retirement community, which is located at the intersecting borders of Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. Development has been on going since at least 1983, with a current planning horizon of the year 2019. Currently, there are 15,362 constructed dwelling units in the built-out portion of the Villages Inc. that are located in Lake County and the extreme northeast corner of Sumter County. The portion located in Marion County is 60 percent complete, with 750 homes completed and another 600 under construction. Approximately another 22,000 residences are planned for development in Sumter County by the year 2012, with an additional 10,200 by the year 2019. However, the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits are only for a six-year duration, and the ERP has a duration of only six years. None of the permits authorize development activities beyond that time frame. Generally speaking, the three permits at issue include an area owned by the Villages Inc. that lies in northeast Sumter County South of County Road 466 and North of County Road 466A. However, it is not projected that this entire area will be built-out during the terms of three proposed permits. Area Hydrology and Topography In the area of the Villages Inc., there is a layer of approximately five to ten feet of sand at the land surface, which is underlain by ten to 70 feet of a clayey sand. Both of these constitute the surficial aquifer and are extremely leaky, allowing water to percolate easily through to a lower layer. Except in the vicinity of Lake Miona, there is no water in the surficial aquifer except after rainfall events. The clayey sand layer is underlain by the Upper Floridan, a limestone unit. The top of this limestone layer ("the top of the rock") occurs at fluctuating depths of between 30 and 70 feet. At approximately 350 to 400 feet below the land surface, there begins a transition to a denser unit that serves as a confining layer between the Upper Floridan production zone and the Lower Floridan production zone. This confining layer, which was confirmed by drilling at three locations in the Villages Inc. is approximately 150 feet thick in the area of the Villages Inc. Another transition, this time to a less dense formation, begins at approximately 550 to 600 feet, which is considered the top of the Lower Floridan production zone. While testing conducted on the project site indicated almost no leakage between the Upper and Lower Floridan production zones, it is generally known by experts that there is some exchange of water between the two layers. Both the Upper and the Lower Floridan contain water that meets potable water standards and both are considered water production zones. The water quality of the two zones is not significantly different. The project area is prone to karst activity, that is, the formation of sinkholes. Sinkholes are formed as a result of the collapse of the overburden above subsurface cavities which have been formed through a very gradual dissolution of limestone, thus resulting in a "sink" at the land surface. Surface water bodies in the area include Lake Miona, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, and Dry Prairie, as well as several other small wetlands. The Potable Water and Irrigation Permits The potable water permit is for the withdrawal from the Upper Floridan Aquifer of 1.164 million gallons of water per day (MGD), on an annual average, for potable use in residences and both commercial and recreational establishments. It also limits the maximum withdrawal during peak months to 2.909 MGD. The Irrigation Permit is for the withdrawal from the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 2.850 MGD, on an annual average, for use in irrigation. The peak month usage rate permissible under the proposed permit would be 9.090 MGD. Water withdrawal under the Irrigation Permit will be used for the irrigation of residential lawns, common areas, commercial landscaping, and golf courses. Modeling of Drawdowns In assessing the impacts of proposed water withdrawals from an aquifer, District personnel considered effects on the aquifers and on-surface water features in the area. Computer- generated models of the predicted effects of the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits withdrawals provided one of the principal bases for this assessment. The primary geologist assigned to review the permit applications reviewed two of the models submitted by the Utility and the Authority (jointly the WUP Applicants) and ran one personal model of her own in order to predict the effects of the proposed withdrawals on the aquifers, as well as on any wetlands and other surface water bodies. In particular, the models predict both the vertical and horizontal extent to which the withdrawals may lower the level of water within the aquifers and in-surface waters under various conditions. One of the models submitted by the WUP Applicants predicted drawdowns during a 90-day period of no rainfall while the other predicted the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits, considered cumulatively with the effects of withdrawals from the already-existing Villages' development in Sumter, Marion, and Lake Counties. The District’s geologist modeled the impacts of the withdrawals over the life of the permits and included the cumulative effects of all of the current Villages' withdrawals in Sumter County. All of these models included the combined effects of both the proposed Potable Water and the Irrigation Permits. Based upon these models, it is concluded that there will be no significant drawdowns as a result of the withdrawals authorized by the proposed water use permits. Specifically, the only predicted drawdown in the surficial aquifer (0.25 feet of drawdown) is in an area where there are no natural surface water features. Drawdown in the Upper Floridan is predicted at between 0.1 and 0.2 feet, while the drawdown in the Lower Floridan is predicted at a maximum of 1.5 feet. These minor drawdowns are not expected to cause any adverse impacts. Transmissivity is the rate at which water moves horizontally through the aquifer. In areas with high transmissivity, the results of water withdrawals from an aquifer will generally be low in magnitude, but broad in lateral extent. Water withdrawals from areas of low transmissivity will result in cones of depression that are more limited in lateral extent, but steeper vertically. The use of too high a transmissivity rate in a model, would overpredict the horizontal distance of the drawdowns caused by withdrawals, but would underpredict the vertical drawdown in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal. Conversely, use of too low a transmissivity would over-predict the effects in the immediate vicinity of the withdrawal but underpredict the lateral extent of the drawdown. The WUP Applicants’ models used a transmissivity value for the Lower Floridan Aquifer of 100,000 feet squared per day ("ft.2/d'). The WUP Applicants’ consultant derived the transmissivity values from a regional model prepared by the University of Florida. The regional model uses a transmissivity value for the entire region of 200,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan. While that transmissivity is appropriate for assessing large-scale impacts, on a more localized level, the transmissivity of the aquifer may be lower. Therefore, the WUP Applicants’ consultant met with District representatives and agreed to use a value half that used in the University of Florida model. A similar approach was used for the transmissivity value used in modeling effects in the Upper Floridan. Notably, specific transmissivity values recorded in four wells in the Villages Inc. area were not used because two of these wells were only cased to a depth of just over 250 feet, with an open hole below that to a depth of 590 feet. Thus, the transmissivity measured in these wells reflect conditions in the confining layer at the immediate location of the wells - not the transmissivity of the Lower Floridan production zone. Further, site-specific information on transmissivity, measured during pump tests at individual wells, does not correlate well to the transmissivity of the aquifer, even at short distances from the well. Transmissivities measured at individual wells are used to determine the depth at which the pump should be set in the well, not to determine the transmissivity of the aquifer. Thus, the use of transmissivities derived from the regional model, but adjusted to be conservative, is entirely appropriate. Moreover, using a transmissivity in her modeling of the project impacts of 27,000 ft.2/d for the Lower Floridan Aquifer, the district geologist’s model predicted no adverse impacts. Leakance is the measure of the resistance of movement vertically through confining units of the aquifer. The leakance value used by the District for the confining layer between the Upper and Lower Floridan was taken from the University of Florida model. Tests conducted on the site actually measured even lower leakance values. Thus, the evidence establishes that the leakance value used in the WUP Applicants’ and the District’s modeling for the Floridan confining layer was reasonable and appropriate. Competent, substantial evidence also establishes that the leakance value used for Lake Miona was reasonable. The WUP Applicants submitted to the District substantial data, gathered over several years, reflecting the balance of water flowing into Lake Miona and the lake’s levels in relation to the potentiometric surface. This documentation verified the leakance value used for Lake Miona in the modeling. Finally, the District modeling used appropriate boundary condition parameters. The District modeling used what is known as the "constant head" boundary and assumes the existence of water generated off-site at the boundaries. Such a boundary simulates the discharge of the aquifer at a certain level. The use of constant head boundaries is an accepted practice. The modeling conducted on behalf of the District and the Applicants provides a reasonable assurances that the Potable Water and Irrigation Permits will not cause adverse water quality or quantity changes to surface or groundwater resources, will not cause adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, and will not cause pollution of the aquifer. Furthermore, because the predicted drawdowns are so insignificant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the withdrawals will not adversely impact existing off-site land uses or existing legal withdrawals. The modeling also provides reasonable assurances that the withdrawals will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. Moreover, monitoring requirements included in the proposed Potable Water and Irrigation Permits provide additional reasonable assurance that – should the withdrawal effects exceed those predicted by the modeling – such effects are identified and necessary steps are taken to mitigate for any potential impacts. The District has reserved the right to modify or revoke all or portions of the water use permits under certain circumstances. Specifically, the proposed Potable Water Permit requires a monitoring plan that includes the following pertinent provisions: There shall be no less than three control wetland and ten onsite wetland monitoring sites; A baseline monitoring report, outlining the current wetland conditions; * * * A statement indicating that an analysis of the water level records for area lakes, including Miona Lake, Black Lake, Cherry Lake, Lake Deaton and Lake Griffin, will be included in the annual report; A statement indicating that an analysis of the spring flow records for Gum Spring, Silver Spring, and Fenney Spring, will be included in the annual report; * * * Wildlife analyses for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods to determine success of the mitigation; A mitigation plan for potentially impacted wetlands, lakes, and adjacent property owner uses or wells, including methods and thresholds to determine success of the mitigation; An annual report of an analysis of the monitoring data . . . . Similar provisions are included in the proposed irrigation permit. The WUP Applicants, in conjunction with the District, have developed sites and methodologies for this monitoring. Reasonable Demand The water to be withdrawn under the proposed Potable Water Permit will serve 10,783 people. This total results from the simple multiplication of the number of residences to be built during the next six years (5,675) by the average number of residents per household (1.9). Those numbers are based upon historical absorption rates within the Villages Inc. development since 1983, an absorption rate that doubles approximately every five years. The Utility proposed a per capita use rate of 108 gallons per day for potable use only. District personnel independently verified that per capita rate, based upon current usage in the existing portions of the Villages Inc. and determined that the rate was reasonable. Based upon the population projections and the per capita rate, the District determined that there is a reasonable demand for the withdrawal of the amount of water, for potable purposes, that is reflected in the Potable Water Permit. The Utility has provided reasonable assurance regarding the Utility’s satisfaction of this permitting criterion. As to the irrigation permit, the Villages Inc. plans, within the next six years, to complete the construction of 1,911 acres of property that will require irrigation. The amount of water originally requested by the Authority for irrigation withdrawals was reduced during the course of the application process at the request of the District. The District determined the reasonable amount of irrigation water needed through the application of AGMOD, a computer model that predicts the irrigation needs of various vegetative covers. Since the Authority intends to utilize treated wastewater effluent as another source of irrigation water, the District reduced the amount of water that it would permit to be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan for irrigation. The District, thus, determined that the Authority would need 1.59 MGD annual average for recreational and aesthetic area irrigation and 1.26 MGD annual average for residential lawn irrigation, for a total of 2.85 MGD. The Villages Inc. also plans to accumulate stormwater in lined ponds for irrigation use. However, unlike its treatment of wastewater effluent, the District did not deduct accumulated stormwater from the amount of water deemed necessary for irrigation. This approach was adopted due to the inability to predict short-term rainfall amounts. The uncontroverted evidence of record establishes reasonable assurances that there is a reasonable demand for the amount of water to be withdrawn under the proposed irrigation permit. Conservation and Reuse Measures Both the Utility and the Authority applications included proposed measures for the conservation and reuse of water. The conservation plan submitted in conjunction with the irrigation permit application provides for control valves to regulate both the pressure and timing of irrigation by residential users; contractual restrictions on water use by commercial users; xeriscaping; and an irrigation control system for golf course irrigation that is designed to maximize the efficient use of water. In addition, in the proposed permits, the District requires the Utility and the Authority to expand upon these conservation measures through such measures as educational efforts, inclined block rate structures, and annual reporting to assess the success of conservation measures. The Authority also committed to reduce its dependence on groundwater withdrawals through the reuse of wastewater effluent, both from the on-site wastewater treatment facility and through contract with the City of Wildwood. Reasonable assurances have been provided that conservation measures have been incorporated and that, to the maximum extent practicable, reuse measures have been incorporated. Use of Lowest Available Quality of Water In addition to the reuse of treated wastewater effluent, the Authority intends to minimize its dependence on groundwater withdrawals for irrigation use through the reuse of stormwater accumulated in lined ponds. Thirty-one of the lined stormwater retention ponds to be constructed by the Villages Inc. are designed as a component of the irrigation system on-site. Ponds will be grouped with the individual ponds within each group linked through underground piping. There will be an electronically controlled valve in the stormwater pond at the end of the pipe that will be used to draw out water for irrigation purposes. These lined stormwater ponds serve several purposes. However, the design feature that is pertinent to the reuse of stormwater for irrigation is the inclusion of additional storage capacity below the top of the pond liner. No groundwater will be withdrawn for irrigation purposes unless the level of stormwater in these lined ponds drops below a designed minimum irrigation level. Groundwater pumped into these ponds will then be pumped out for irrigation. Thus, the use of groundwater for irrigation is minimized. The Authority has met its burden of proving that it will use the lowest quality of water available. With respect to the potable permit, the evidence establishes that there are only minor differences between the water quality in the Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan in this area. The Upper Floridan is a reasonable source for potable supply in this area. Thus, reasonable assurances have been provided by the Utility that it will utilize the lowest water quality that it has the ability to use for potable purposes. Waste of Water In regard to concerns that the design of the Villages Inc.'s stormwater/irrigation system will result in wasteful losses of water due to evaporation from the surface of the lined ponds, it must be noted that there are no artesian wells relating to this project and nothing in the record to suggest that the groundwater withdrawals by either the Utility or the Authority will cause excess water to run into the surface water system. Additionally, the evidence establishes that, to the extent groundwater will be withdrawn from the Lower Floridan and pumped into lined stormwater ponds, such augmentation is not for an aesthetic purpose. Instead, the groundwater added to those ponds will be utilized as an integral part of the irrigation system and will be limited in quantity to the amount necessary for immediate irrigation needs. Finally, the water to be withdrawn will be put to beneficial potable and irrigation uses, rather than wasteful purposes. Under current regulation, water lost from lined stormwater ponds through evaporation is not considered as waste. Thus, the Authority and the Utility have provided reasonable assurances that their withdrawals of groundwater will not result in waste. The ERP The stormwater management system proposed by the Villages Inc. will eventually serve 5,016 acres on which residential, commercial, golf course, and other recreational development will ultimately be constructed. However, the proposed permit currently at issue is preliminary in nature and will only authorize the construction of stormwater ponds, earthworks relating to the construction of compensating flood storage, and wetland mitigation. Water Quality Impacts The stormwater management system will include eight shallow treatment ponds that will be adjacent to Lake Miona and Black Lake and 45 lined retention ponds. Thirty-one of these lined ponds will serve as part of the irrigation system for a portion of the Villages Inc.'s development. All of these ponds provide water quality treatment. The unlined ponds will retain the first one inch of stormwater and then overflow into the lakes. The ponds provide water quality treatment of such water before it is discharged into the lakes. The water quality treatment provided by these ponds provides reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely impact the water quality of receiving waters. While they do not discharge directly to surface receiving waters, the lined retention ponds do provide protection against adverse water quality impacts on groundwater. There will be some percolation from these ponds, from the sides at heights above the top of the liner. However, the liners will prevent the discharge of pollutants through the highly permeable surface strata into the groundwater. The Villages Inc. designed the system in this manner in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Environmental Protection during the DRI process regarding potential pollutant loading of the aquifer at the retention pond sites. Furthermore, by distributing the accumulated stormwater - through the irrigation system - over a wider expanse of vegetated land surface, a greater degree of water quality treatment will be achieved than if the stormwater were simply permitted to percolate directly through the pond bottom. There is no reasonable expectation that pollutants will be discharged into the aquifer from the lined ponds. If dry ponds were used, there would be an accumulation of pollutants in the pond bottom. These measures provide reasonable assurances that there will be no adverse impact on the quality of receiving waters. Water Quantity Impacts With regard to the use of lined retention ponds, as part of the Villages Inc.’s stormwater system and the impact of such ponds on water quantity, the evaporative losses from lined ponds as opposed to unlined ponds is a differential of approximately one (1) inch of net recharge. The acreage of the lined ponds - even measured at the very top of the pond banks - is only 445 acres. That differential, in terms of a gross water balance, is not significant, in view of the other benefits provided by the lined ponds. As part of the project, wetlands will be created and expanded and other water bodies will be created. After rainfalls, these unlined ponds will be filled with water and will lose as much water through evaporation as would any other water body. The design proposed by the Villages Inc., however, will distribute the accumulated stormwater across the project site through the irrigation of vegetated areas. The documentation submitted by the Villages Inc. establishes that the ERP will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. The Villages Inc. has carried its burden as to this permitting criterion. Flooding, Surface Water Conveyance, and Storage Impacts Parts of the project are located in areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) as 100-year flood zones. Specifically, these areas are located along Lake Miona, Black Lake, between Black Lake and Cherry Lake, and at some locations south of Black Lake. Under the District’s rules, compensation must be provided for any loss of flood zone in filled areas by the excavation of other areas. The District has determined, based upon the documentation provided with the Villages Inc.’s application, work on the site will encroach on 871.37 acre feet of the FEMA 100-year flood zone. However, 1,051.70 acre feet of compensating flood zone is being created. The Villages Inc. proposes to mitigate for the loss of flood zone primarily in the areas of Dry Prairie and Cherry Lake. At present, Cherry Lake is the location of a peat mining operation authorized by DEP permit. Mining has occurred at that site since the early 1980s. The flood zone mitigation proposed by the Villages Inc. provides reasonable assurance that it will sufficiently compensate for any loss of flood basin storage. The Villages Inc.'s project provides reasonable assurance that it will neither adversely affect surface water storage or conveyance capabilities, surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows nor cause adverse flooding. Each of the 45 retention ponds to be constructed on-site will include sufficient capacity, above the top of the pond liner, to hold a 100-year/24-hour storm event. This includes stormwater drainage from off-site. In addition, these ponds are designed to have an extra one foot of freeboard above that needed for the 100-year/24-hour storm, thus providing approximately an additional 100 acres of flood storage beyond that which will be lost through construction on-site. Furthermore, the Villages Inc. has proposed an emergency flood plan. In the event of a severe flood event, excess water will be pumped from Dry Prairie, Cherry Lake, and Lake Miona and delivered to the retention ponds and to certain golf course fairways located such that habitable living spaces would not be endangered. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation There are 601 acres of wetlands and surface waters of various kinds in the Villages Inc.’s project area. Forty-one acres of wetlands will be impacted by the work that is authorized under the ERP. Each of these impacted wetlands, along with the extent of the impact, is listed in the ERP. The impacts include both fill and excavation and all will be permanent. When assessing wetland impacts and proposed mitigation for those impacts, the District seeks to ensure that the activities proposed will not result in a net loss of wetland functionality. The object is to ensure that the end result will function at least as well as did the wetlands in their pre-impact condition. Functional value is judged, at least in part, by the long term viability of the wetland. While small, isolated wetlands are not completely without value, large wetland ecosystems – which are less susceptible to surrounding development – generally have greater long-term habitat value. The District’s policy is that an applicant need not provide any mitigation for the loss of habitat in wetlands of less than 0.5 acre, except under certain limited circumstances, including where the wetland is utilized by threatened or endangered species. Some wetlands that will be impacted by the Villages Inc.’s project are of high functional value and some are not as good. The Villages Inc. proposes a variety of types of mitigation for the wetlands impacts that will result from its project, all of which are summarized in the ERP. In all, 331.55 acres of mitigation are proposed by the Villages Inc. First, the District proposes to create new wetlands. Approximately 11 acres of this new wetland will consist of a marsh, which is to be created east of Cherry Lake. Second, it proposes to undertake substantial enhancement of Dry Prairie, a 126-acre wetland. Currently – and since at least the early nineties – Dry Prairie received discharge water from the peat mining operation at Cherry Lake. Without intervention, when the mining operations stop, Dry Prairie would naturally become drier than it has been for several years and would lose some of the habitat function that it has been providing. The Villages Inc.’s proposed enhancement is designed to match the current hydroperiods of Dry Prairie, thus ensuring its continued habitat value. Third, the Villages Inc. has proposed to enhance upland buffers around wetlands and surface waters by planting natural vegetation, thus providing a natural barrier. Placement of these buffers in conservation easements does not provide the Villages Inc. with mitigation credit, since a 25-foot buffer is required anyway. However, the District determined that the enhancement of these areas provided functional value to the wetlands and surface waters that would not be served by the easements alone. Fourth, the Villages Inc. will place a conservation easement over certain areas, including a 1500-foot radius preserve required by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) around an identified eagles’ nest. These areas will also be used for the relocation of gopher tortoises and, if any are subsequently located, of gopher frogs. While the Villages Inc. is also performing some enhancement of this area, it will receive no mitigation credit for such enhancement – which was required to meet FWCC requirements. However, since the conservation easement will remain in effect in perpetuity, regardless of whether the eagles continue to use the nest, the easement ensures the continued, viability of the area’s wetlands and provides threatened and endangered species habitat. In order to provide additional assurances that these mitigation efforts will be successful, the District has included a condition in the proposed permit establishing wetland mitigation success criteria for the various types of proposed mitigation. If these success criteria are not achieved, additional mitigation must be provided. With the above described mitigation, the activities authorized under the ERP will not adversely impact the functional value of wetlands and other surface waters to fish or wildlife. The Villages Inc. has met its burden of providing reasonable assurances relating to this permit criterion. Capability of Performing Effectively The Villages Inc. has also provided reasonable assurances that the stormwater management system proposed is capable of functioning as designed. The retention ponds proposed are generally of a standard-type design and will not require complicated maintenance procedures. In its assessment of the functional capability of the system, the District did not concern itself with the amount of stormwater that the system might contribute for irrigation purposes. Rather, it focused its consideration on the stormwater management functions of the system. The question of the effectiveness of the system for irrigation purposes is not relevant to the determination of whether the Villages Inc. has met the criteria for permit issuance. Consequently, the record establishes that the documentation provided by the Villages Inc. contains reasonable assurances that the stormwater system will function effectively and as proposed. Operation Entity The Villages Inc. has created Community Development District No. 5 (CDD No. 5), which will serve as the entity responsible for the construction and maintenance of the stormwater system. CDD No. 5 will finance the construction through special revenue assessment bonds and will finance maintenance through the annual assessments. Similar community development districts were established to be responsible for earlier phases of the Villages Inc. The ERP includes a specific condition that, prior to any wetlands impacts, the Villages Inc. will either have to provide the District with documentation of the creation of a community development district or present the District with a performance bond in the amount of $1,698,696.00. Since the undisputed testimony at hearing was that CDD No. 5 has, in fact, now been created, there are reasonable assurances of financial responsibility. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Villages Inc.’s application also provides accurate and reliable information sufficient to establish that there are reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater system will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands or other surface waters or adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The system is designed in a manner that will meet water treatment criteria and there will be no secondary water quality impacts. Further, the use of buffers will prevent secondary impacts to wetlands and wetland habitats and there will be no secondary impacts to archeological or historical resources. In this instance, the stormwater system proposed by the Villages Inc. will function in a manner that replaces any water quantity or water quality functions lost by construction of the system. In its assessment of the possible cumulative impacts of the system, the District considered areas beyond the bounds of the current project, including the area to the south that is currently being reviewed under the DRI process as a substantial deviation. The District’s environmental scientist, Leonard Bartos, also reviewed that portion of the substantial deviation north of County Road 466A, in order to determine the types of wetlands present there. Furthermore, the District is one of the review agencies that comments on DRI and substantial deviation applications. When such an application is received by the District’s planning division, it is routed to the regulatory division for review. The District includes its knowledge of the DRIs in its determination that there are no cumulative impacts. Reasonable assurances have been provided as to these permitting criteria. Public Interest Balancing Test Because the proposed stormwater system will be located in, on, and over certain wetlands, the Villages Inc. must provide reasonable assurances that the system will not be contrary to the public interest. This assessment of this permitting criteria requires that the District balance seven factors. While the effects of the proposed activity will be permanent, the Villages Inc. has provided reasonable assurances that it will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare; on fishing or recreational values; on the flow of water; on environmental resources, including fish and wildlife and surface water resources; or on off-site properties. Furthermore, the District has carefully assessed the current functions being provided by the affected wetland areas. With respect to historical or archeological resources, the Villages Inc. has received letters from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, stating that there are no significant historical or archeological resources on the project site that is the subject of this permit proceeding. Thus, the evidence establishes reasonable assurances that the Villages Inc.'s stormwater system will not be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the District and Applicant presented uncontroverted evidence that the proposed project will not adversely impact a work of the District, and that there are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing Water Use Permit Nos. 20012236.000 and 20012239.000 and Environmental Resource Permit No. 43020198.001, in accordance with the District’s proposed agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of June, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should be subject to civil penalties and required to submit a Compliance Plan for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and Order filed on January 8, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this enforcement action, Petitioner, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), proposes to assess civil penalties against, and require a compliance plan from, Respondents, Balm Associates, Inc. (Balm) and Goodson Farms, Inc. (Goodson), on the grounds that from March 1999 through July 2001 they made water withdrawals from certain property in Hillsborough County, Florida, without a water use permit, and after a permit was obtained in August 2001, they continued to exceed the annual average daily withdrawals authorized under the permit through the month of November 2001, or just prior to the preparation and issuance of the Administrative Complaint and Order (Complaint).1 While not denying that excessive pumpages may have occurred, and that a permit was not obtained until August 2001, Balm points out that it is the owner-lessor of the property and not the consumptive user of the water, and contends that the District has no authority to enforce its rules against, and recover civil penalties from, the non-user of the water. In its request for a hearing, Goodson did not specifically dispute the allegation that it consumed water without a permit, or exceeded the withdrawal limits under the new permit, but contended instead that the limits were unrealistic and should be modified. At the final hearing, however, Goodson disputed the accuracy of the water consumption figures used in the Complaint. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Balm is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is 2101 Huntington Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. It owns approximately 220 acres of land in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 21 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, which is the site of the alleged wrongdoing. Goodson is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 246, Balm, Florida 33503. Goodson is in the farming business and operates a total of 13 farms, including the farm at issue in this proceeding. Permit Requirements Under Rule 40D-2.041(1), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit is required whenever total withdrawal capacity from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); annual average withdrawal from any source or combined sources is greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd; or withdrawal is from a well having an outside diameter of 6 inches or more at the surface. Rule 40D-2.351(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a permittee must notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted water withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located. The same rule also provides that where a permit has been issued to a party whose ownership or legal control of the permitted water withdrawal facilities subsequently ends, the party who assumes control over the facilities may apply to transfer the permit to himself or herself up to the renewal date of the transferor's permit. Finally, Rule 40D-2.351(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that until a permit is transferred or a new permit is obtained, the party subsequently controlling the permitted water withdrawal facilities will be in violation of District rules for making withdrawals without the required permit. History of Permits on the Property On September 29, 1989, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 207135.001 (the .001 permit) to James Brown (Brown) and B & T Growers Partnership (B & T) for water withdrawals from one well for agricultural purposes on Balm's property. The .001 permit authorized annual average withdrawals of 102,000 gpd of groundwater for agricultural irrigation. On August 29, 1990, the District adopted new rules applicable to District permits within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA). The .001 permit was within the ETBWUCA, and Brown and B & T were provided with a Notice of Permit Modification and new Permit Conditions. The new conditions became effective November 15, 1990. New Condition No. 5 provided that By July 31, 1995, all permitted withdrawal points shall be equipped with totalizing flow meters or other measuring devices as approved in writing by the Director, Resource Regulation Department. Such devices shall have and maintain accuracy within five percent of the actual flow installed. On December 14, 1992, the District approved the transfer of the .001 permit from Brown and B & T to B. Kenda Produce. The Unpermitted Water Withdrawals On June 30, 1997, Goodson entered into a two-year agricultural lease with Balm to use a portion of the property, including acreage previously used by B. Kendra Produce. At the time the lease was entered into, neither Respondent applied to the District to have the .001 permit transferred from B. Kendra Produce. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that after the first lease expired, the parties continued to execute new lease agreements at least through the time of the hearing. The portion of the property which Goodson leased and farmed is referred to as the "Sweat Loop Farm" and consists of approximately 100 acres. There is one well with an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface located on the Sweat Loop Farm. The well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), which is over 1,000,000 gpd. Thus, withdrawals from the well required a water use permit. As noted earlier, Goodson operates a total of 13 farms on approximately 2,500 acres of land. There are approximately 15 wells on all 13 farms, including the Sweat Loop Farm. Michael E. Hare, an irrigation supervisor who is responsible for the irrigation of all 13 of Goodson's farms, installed a total of approximately 8 meters on the farms, including the meter on the Sweat Loop Farm. A totalizing flow meter, which was made by MiCrometer, was installed at the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Mr. Hare acknowledged that he was familiar with MiCrometer meters and would be aware if the MiCrometer flow meter on the Sweat Loop Farm was not functioning properly. Whenever metering devices on the various Goodson farms have malfunctioned in the past, Mr. Hare has taken the malfunctioning meter to a metering company to be fixed. Goodson began irrigating the Sweat Loop Farm in June 1997. Since that time, Goodson has been the sole water user of the well on the farm. In March 1999, Goodson began submitting to the District monthly pumpage reports for the groundwater withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm. Although some unmeasured withdrawals presumably occurred prior to March 1999, the Complaint does not identify these as being a violation. Mr. Hare and other supervisors are responsible for collecting the meter readings which go on the monthly pumpage reports and providing them to the District. The information on the reports includes the permit number; the last month's meter reading; the current month's meter reading; the total gallons of water pumped for the current month; the meter total; and the meter factor. To determine the average daily withdrawal on the Sweat Loop Farm, the District relied upon the calculations provided by Goodson as to the total gallons of water pumped for the month and divided this number by 30 days. From March 1999 through July 2001, these quantities were as follows: MONTH/YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE March 1999 April 1999 531,487 No data available May 1999 364,930 June 1999 0 July 1999 0 August 1999 57,410 September 1999 49,563 October 1999 222,667 November 1999 250,667 December 1999 755,003 January 2000 689,433 February 2000 695,073 March 2000 544,427 April 2000 305,153 May 2000 597,720 June 2000 0 July 2000 62,120 August 2000 86,370 September 2000 123,233 October 2000 602,020 November 2000 409,550 December 2000 145,823 January 2001 957,690 February 2001 890,213 March 2001 391,280 April 2001 467,640 May 2001 617,177 June 2001 0 July 2001 0 Under Rule 40D-2.041(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, a water use permit was required for Goodson's withdrawals since the well's total withdrawal capacity is approximately 1,500 gpm, which is greater than 1,000,000 gpd; the annual average withdrawals exceeded 100,000 gpd; and the well has an outside diameter of 10 inches at the surface. The withdrawals on the Sweat Loop Farm were not authorized by the .001 permit since neither Goodson or Balm was a permittee under the permit. Even if Goodson could rely on the permit, which it cannot, pumpage data provided by Goodson reflects that the water withdrawals (except for nine months) were in excess of that authorized by the permit. On June 16, 2000, the District mailed a Notice of Non-Compliance for excessive water withdrawals to Goodson. The Notice indicated that if the pumpage values submitted by Goodson were incorrect, Goodson was to explain the error and provide corrected quantities. On June 26, 2000, the District received a written response to the Notice of Non-Compliance from the superintendent of the Sweat Loop Farm who indicated that the pumpage values were correct, and that the excess usage was due to a "serious drought condition" which had caused a "significant financial hardship on [the] farm." The response also indicated that Goodson would contact Mr. Haftel, owner of Balm, to request that he "revise the water use permit for spring crops." On November 22, 2000, the District mailed Goodson a Notice of Violation indicating that the quantities authorized by the .001 permit were still being exceeded and that the District might seek monetary penalties if Goodson failed to come into compliance within 30 days. Despite the foregoing Notice, Goodson continued to make withdrawals without a permit and in excess of the quantities formerly authorized under the .001 permit until August 2001 when a new permit was finally obtained. Issuance of a New Water Use Permit On January 2, 2001, the District received an application for a General Water Use Permit seeking to modify the .001 permit to increase the withdrawal quantities and to transfer the permit from B. Kendra Produce to Balm. "Seymour Haftel/ Balm Associates, Inc." was listed as the applicant, and "Donn Goodson" from " Goodson Farms" was listed as the contact or consultant. Mr. Haftel signed the application on behalf of Balm. Goodson assisted Balm in securing the permit for the Sweat Loop Farm because Goodson wanted more water for irrigation purposes. Section 2.1 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application, adopted and incorporated by reference by Rule 40D-2.091, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]pplications for leased property, except property leased from the District, must be either a joint application in the name of the lessee and the property owner(s) or be only in the name of the property owner(s)." In a Request for Additional Information mailed to Balm on January 29, 2001, the District asked whether Goodson should be listed as co-applicant on the application. On April 27, 2001, Balm submitted a response which indicated that Goodson should not be listed as co-applicant. On August 6, 2001, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 200007135.002 (the .002 permit) to Seymour Haftel/Balm Associates, Inc. authorizing an increase in the annual average withdrawals to 224,300 gpd. The permit had an expiration date of September 29, 2009. The permit contained a number of special conditions, none of which were challenged by Balm. Unauthorized Withdrawals Under the .002 Permit Special Condition No. 2 of the .002 permit requires in part that the permittee: continue to maintain and operate the existing non-resettable, totalizing flow meter(s), or other flow measuring device(s) as approved by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation, for District ID No(s), Permittee ID No(s)[,] G-1. Such device(s) shall maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total withdrawal and meter readings from each metered withdrawal shall be recorded on a monthly basis and reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department, (using District forms) on or before the tenth day of the following month. In the event a permittee chooses not to use a totalizing flow meter, as required by Special Condition No. 2, the District will review information provided by the measuring device's manufacturer to determine if the measuring device would maintain a five percent accuracy as required by the Condition. The meters have to be monitored and calibrated periodically for accuracy. It is the permittee's responsibility to comply with the conditions of the permit, including Special Condition No. 2, which requires the submittal of accurate pumpage reports. Goodson submitted the meter readings on behalf of Balm beginning in September 2001, which covered the withdrawals for the month of August 2001. The District relied on the meter readings submitted by Goodson to determine the annual average daily pumpage calculation for the .002 permit. The calculation is a running 12-month average, whereby each month the annual average daily quantity is recalculated based on the previous 12-month pumpage. The running annual average daily pumpage and percentage of pumpage which exceeded the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002 are as follows: MONTH/YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE PERCENTAGE OVERPUMPED August 2001 378,462 69 percent September 2001 382,622 71 percent October 2001 376,687 68 percent November 2001 383,008 71 percent December 2001 379,212 69 percent January 2002 327,343 46 percent February 2002 321,530 43 percent March 2002 350,701 56 percent April 2002 356,013 59 percent May 2002 338,131 51 percent As the foregoing data reflects, the withdrawals from the Sweat Loop Farm were in excess of that authorized by the .002 permit from August 2001 through May 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Respondents are guilty of the charges in its Administrative Complaint and Order except as concluded in paragraph 48 above and endnote 2 below; that Respondents be required to submit an acceptable written plan (Compliance Plan) to the District for its consideration and approval within fourteen days after entry of the final order; that the Compliance Plan describe how Respondents shall achieve full compliance with the .002 permit; that the Compliance Plan include reductions in withdrawals, water conservation measures, and development and utilization of alternative resources; that the Compliance Plan establish deadlines for implementation and completion of corrective actions; that full compliance be achieved within 120 days after entry of the final order; and that any failure of Respondents to comply with any provision of the Compliance Plan shall constitute a violation of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issues presented for decision in this case are: whether Martin County should be granted the re-issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W for the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant and associated wells; and (2) whether Martin County should be granted Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B for the construction of Well No. 10 of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant, pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James W. Slusher, Jr., and his wife, Diane L. Slusher, own a residential lot located in unincorporated Martin County at 2376 SW Ranch Trail, Stuart, Florida 34997. On the lot is a single family home. The size of the residential lot is approximately 2.25 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Slusher purchased the subject residential lot and home in September of 1994 from Mrs. Stella Kassinger. Mrs. Kassinger and her late husband (the “original owners”) had the home built on the residential lot in approximately 1980. When the original owners built the home, they had a hole or “pit” dug in the rear portion of the lot. From aerial photographs taken at the time (1979-1980), and based upon the common practice in the area, it appears that the material from the “pit” was spread on-site to provide additional elevation for, and to minimize the potential for flooding of, the home and driveway that were constructed on the lot. Thus, the original “design function” of the “pit” was to provide fill for construction. The original owners thereafter allowed the “pit” to accumulate water and stocked it with fish so that Mr. Kassinger could use it recreationally as a fishing pond. The “design function” of the original “pit” was thus changed so that it would serve as a recreational amenity on the property. During the subsequent 14 years that the original owners lived in the home, they did nothing further to alter or improve the fishing pond. Over the years, the area immediately around the fishing pond became heavily vegetated and was used from time to time by various wild birds and animals. The fishing pond was used by the original owners for fishing and for observing the wildlife it attracted. After purchasing the home, Mr. Slusher also stocked the fishing pond with various fish over the years so that he and his family could continue to use it recreationally. The fishing pond continued to be used by the Slushers for fishing, for observing wildlife, and as a swimming area for their dogs. Currently, the overall dimensions of the fishing pond are approximately 90 feet wide, by 122 feet long, by 10 feet deep at its deepest part, when filled to the level that was natural prior to the operation of Water Well No. 10. Potable water for the Slusher home is obtained from a well drilled on the property, not from the public water system of the County. The Slusher well is located approximately 33 feet from the home. It is attached by PVC pipe to a pump located next to the home. The original owners caused the well to be drilled. The record in this case does not contain any persuasive evidence regarding the details of the Slusher residential water well. Specifically absent are such details as the depth to which the well was originally drilled, the material from which the well tube was made (i.e., cast iron or PVC), and the current physical condition of the sub-surface portions of the well. Mr. Slusher has not done anything to repair or replace the well since he and his wife purchased the home. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed a petition with the SFWMD challenging the issuance of Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B, and the "use of the well." On November 3, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed an amended petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W and Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B. Martin County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, established in 1925 pursuant to Section 7.43, Florida Statutes, and Section 1, Chapter 10180, Laws of Florida. SFWMD is an independent state agency, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. SFWMD originally issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on April 15, 1993. The “water use permit” was for wells and associated equipment at the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant (“Tropical Farms WTP”). SFWMD re-issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on March 14, 1996. The re-issued “water use permit” allowed additional wells to be drilled and additional draws of water by the County at the Tropical Farms WTP. One of the additional wells included in the re-issued water use permit was “Well No. 10.” SFWMD issued Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B to the County on March 28, 1996, allowing the construction of Well No. 10 at the Tropical Farms WTP. In accordance with the restrictions imposed by the water well construction permit, the County drilled Well No. 10 on a site located at least 100 feet in distance from the fishing pond on the Slushers’ property. The physical location of Well No. 10 is essentially “adjacent to” the Slusher property. County Well No. 10 is approximately 120 feet deep and draws water from the surficial aquifer. It commenced operation in December of 1996. It is uncontested that the operation of the well field, especially County Well No. 10, has caused drawdowns of the pond level and of the groundwater in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The MODFLOW model used by the County in support of its application indicates a maximum drawdown of 7.4 feet. The persuasive expert opinion evidence in this case indicates that maximum draw downs of 7 or 8 feet would be expected in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The County has acknowledged that the operation of Well No. 10 has had a significant effect on the drawdown of the water table in the area of the pond. County Well No. 10 appears to have been constructed in a manner consistent with the applicable rules. The well was properly drilled and grouted, the correct materials were used, and the well was constructed in a manner that did not result in harm to the water resources. The water use permit was issued prior to the well construction permit, as is appropriate. Although permitted originally in 1993 and again in 1996, the Tropical Farms WTP did not begin regular operations until June of 1997. It is now part of a consolidated system which includes four other water treatment plants, all operated by the County for the purpose of obtaining and providing potable water to the public county-wide. In support of its applications for the issuance and re-issuance of the water use permit, the County provided SFWMD with so-called “MODFLOW calculations” done by a professional engineering firm retained by the County. MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey and is considered the standard for assessment of ground water resource impacts. The results of the three-dimensional MODFLOW modeling showed that the drawdown effect on the water table of the proposed wells for the Tropical Farms WTP would be unlikely to cause any adverse effect on typical wells used by homeowners, even if the latter were located within the same small “square” as one of the County’s wells. Prior to the commencement of the operation of Well No. 10 by the County, the water level in the fishing pond on the Slusher property would vary only a few inches up or down during the course of a typical year. After the County began to operate County Well No. 10, Mr. Slusher observed and videotaped much greater variations in the water level in the fishing pond on his property. After County Well No. 10 began to operate, the pond water level dropped to the extent that it would become virtually empty of water from time to time. At other times, however, the fishing pond would refill with water, such as in September of 1999, and in August of 2001. When the water in Mr. Slusher's pond gets very low, it has an adverse impact on the fish in the pond; the fish die because they have insufficient water. Mr. Slusher has not done anything over the years since the operation of County Well No. 10 began to attempt to prevent the variations in the water level of the fishing pond, or to mitigate the occurrence of such variations. The County (together with the rest of southern Florida) has experienced several periods of severe drought over the past few years. Yet other “ponds” on other properties in the same neighborhood as the Slusher property have not experienced the significant variance in water level that has occurred in the fishing pond on the Slusher property since the County began drawing water from Well No. 10. The County does not operate Well No. 10 continuously. Rather, it has attempted to reduce its use of the well. SFWMD has never issued any notice to the County that any mitigation was required on the Slusher property pursuant to the limiting conditions of the water use permit. The County does not dispute that its operation of Well No. 10 has contributed to a drawdown in the level of the water table in the surrounding area, nor that such a drawdown has contributed to the variance in the water level in the pond on the Slusher property. Indeed, the drawdown of the water table generally was fully anticipated and predicted in the materials submitted by the County to SFWMD. The use of County Well No. 10 to draw water from the surficial aquifer is not the only factor contributing to the variances in the water level of the fishing pond on the Slusher property. Evaporation and natural variances in the level of the water table also contribute to changes in the water level of the fishing pond. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay that is mined for a variety of uses, including the “lining” or “waterproofing” of reservoirs, lagoons, ponds, ditches, and other man-made bodies of water in order to seal them and to prevent or minimize seepage or percolation of the water into the ground. Even repeated wetting and drying of the clay does not reduce its effectiveness. Bentonite is widely used and has not been found to have any harmful or toxic effects on either human beings or wildlife. In some applications, bentonite clay is a superior lining material when compared to a man-made liner, such as a plastic or polymer sheet. In a small scale application where the volume of water in a lined pond is relatively low, a man- made liner could be forced away (“balloon up”) from the bottom of the pond by the pressure of a rising natural water table. Lining the pond on the Slusher property with Bentonite (or some similar clay) would create a virtually impervious layer that would separate the water in the pond on the Slusher property from the surrounding water table. With such a lining in place, County Well No. 10 would have no significant effect on the water level of the pond. The water level in the pond on the Slusher property could also be stabilized at or near its normal level prior to the operation of County Well No. 10 by installation of a water supply that would add water to the pond whenever the pond dropped below a specified level. Mr. Slusher first complained to the County about the effect of the County’s operation of Well No. 10 in 1997, when he spoke with Jim Mercurio, a County water utilities employee. Mr. Slusher also complained at about the same time to SFWMD, which resulted in a “field investigation” in September 1997. At that time, Mr. Slusher complained about the lowering of the water level in the pond on his property, but specifically denied any adverse effect on the water from his residential water well. Mr. Slusher began to complain about the water quality and water pressure in his residential water well sometime in 2000. The water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well now has an unpleasant odor, taste, and color, and the water causes rust stains. The water pressure of the water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well is less than it was before the construction of County Well No. 10. The rust stains, odor, taste, and color are all due to iron oxidation of the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. The County regularly experiences similar problems with iron oxidation in the water that it draws from its own wells in the same area as the Slusher property, which the County must treat at the Tropical Farms WTP. The problem of iron oxidation (and accompanying odor and taste deficiencies) in the water is thus not unique to the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. Iron oxidation in well water is not harmful to human beings. The evidence in this case does not include any evidence of any testing of the water quality of the water coming from the Slusher residential well. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence as to the current condition of the sub- surface portions of the Slusher residential well. Further, the evidence regarding the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or the water pressure of the Slusher residential water well is both anecdotal and speculative, and is not a persuasive basis for determining the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or water pressure of the subject residential well. Specifically, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the water quality and water pressure deterioration complained of by Mr. Slusher are a result of the operation of County Well No. 10. Such deterioration could be caused by other circumstances or conditions, including the uninspected sub-surface condition of Slusher's residential water well. The water quality and water pressure problems currently experienced by Mr. Slusher could be minimized or eliminated by connecting his residence to the residential water supply system operated by the County. A branch of the County's public water system already exists in Mr. Slusher's neighborhood within a few hundred feet of his property. The application and information provided to SFWMD by the County were determined by SFWMD to provide “reasonable assurances” that existing legal users would not be adversely affected by the proposed wells or water treatment facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B and re- issuing Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to Martin County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard K. Heims, Esquire Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. 618 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 5 Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Oculina Bank is entitled to a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization to construct three single-family homes, an access drive, surface water management systems, and three single-family docks in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, and Garrett Bewkes live approximately one mile north of the proposed project site, on John's Island. John's Island is on the opposite side of the Indian River Lagoon from the proposed project site. Petitioner Carolyn Stutt uses the Lagoon for boating, nature observation, nature photography, and sketching. Petitioner Robert Prosser uses the Lagoon for boating, kayaking, and fishing. Petitioner Garrett Bewkes uses the Lagoon for boating and fishing. Petitioners Michael Casale, Orin Smith, and Stephanie Smith did not testify at the final hearing nor present other evidence to show they have substantial interests that would be affected by the proposed project. Respondent/Applicant Oculina Bank owns the project site, which it acquired through foreclosure, and is named in the agency action that is the subject of this proceeding. The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in waters of the State. The Department also has authority to process applications for authorization from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to use sovereignty submerged lands for structures and activities that will preempt their use by the general public. The Project Site The project site is 15.47 acres and located along 45th Street/Gifford Dock Road in Vero Beach. It is on the western shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. The Lagoon in this area is part of the Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve. It is also an Outstanding Florida Water. The Lagoon is an estuary, but it is almost non-tidal in this area. There is a seasonal rise in sea level that occurs from August to November and it is during this season that waters of the Lagoon flood into adjacent wetlands. The wetlands may be inundated at other times as a result of large storms. The wetlands along the western shore of the Lagoon play a major role in regional tarpon and snook fisheries. Wetlands provide essential refuges for early-stage tarpon and snook. When the wetlands are inundated, larval tarpon and snook move into the wetlands and seek out shallow areas to avoid predation by larger fish. When the waters of the Lagoon recede, the juvenile tarpon and snook remain in the wetlands where the predators cannot go. The project site is dominated by salt marsh wetlands. In order to control salt marsh mosquitoes, the site was impounded by the Indian River Mosquito Control District sometime in the 1950s by excavating ditches and building earthen berms or dikes along the boundaries of the site. During the dry season, the Mosquito Control District pumped water into the impounded wetlands to keep them wet. It discontinued the seasonal pumping many years ago. There was a dispute about whether the wetlands on the project are isolated or are connected to the Lagoon. The mean high water line of the Lagoon in this area is 0.78 feet. The berms were constructed to an elevation of about five feet, but there are now lower elevations in some places, as low as 2.5 feet in spots on the north and south berms and 3.8 feet on the shore-parallel berm. Therefore, the wetlands can be described as isolated for much of the year because the waters of the Lagoon cannot enter the wetlands unless the waters rise above these lowest berm elevations. On the other hand, the Lagoon and the wetlands are connected whenever the water rises above the lowest berm elevations. Petitioners' experts said the project site is still inundated seasonally by waters of the Lagoon, but they did not address the frequency and duration of the inundation. The more persuasive evidence is that the frequency and duration of inundation has been reduced by the impoundment berms. There are almost 14 acres of wetlands impounded by the berms. The impoundment berms and fill along the road comprise 1.71 acres. The impounded wetlands are dominated by salt grass. There are also mangroves, mostly white mangroves, along the side slopes of the berms. Most of the upland areas are dominated by Brazilian pepper trees and Australian pine trees, which are non- native, invasive vegetation. Within the wetlands are three ponds. Before the project site was impounded for mosquito control, it had "high marsh" vegetation such as saltwort and glasswort, as well as black and red mangroves. The impoundment resulted in the loss of these species. There is now reduced nutrient export from the impounded wetlands to the Lagoon. Nevertheless, Petitioners' experts believe the wetlands still have high functional value. Dr. Gilmore believes this site is "one of the critical habitats maintaining regional tarpon fisheries." Dr. Gilmore found juvenile tarpon, among other species, in the wetlands on the site. The project site provides nesting, denning, and foraging habitat for numerous birds and other wildlife. Petitioners presented evidence that there might be a small fish, rivulus marmoratus, that uses the site, which is a listed "species of special concern." To the north and south of the project site are salt marsh wetlands that have been restored. North of the project site is a portion of the mitigation area for a development called Grand Harbor. To the south is the CGW Mitigation Bank. Both adjacent wetland areas were restored by improving their connection to the Lagoon and removing exotic vegetation. The restored wetlands to the north and south now contain a dominance of saltwort and glasswort. They also have more black and red mangroves. These environmental improvements, as well as an increase in species diversity, are typical for former mosquito control impoundments that have been restored. In the offshore area where the three proposed docks would be constructed, there are scattered seagrasses which are found as close as 25 feet offshore and far as 100 feet offshore. They include Manatee grass, Cuban shoal grass, and Johnson’s seagrass. Oyster shells were also observed from 50 feet to 400 feet (the limit of the survey) offshore. There was a dispute whether a significant number of live oysters are present. Oculina Bank's and the Department's experts found no live oysters, but Petitioners' expert found some live oysters and believes they represent an important resource. The rules of the Board of Trustees require greater protection for areas with submerged resources. Rule 18- 20.003(54) defines a Resource Protection Area 1 ("RPA1") as an area within an aquatic preserve which has "resources of the highest quality," which may include marine grassbeds and "oyster bars." A Resource Protection Area 2 ("RPA2") is defined as an area which is "in transition" with declining RPA1 resources. The grassbeds in the area of the proposed dock constitute RPA1s. The oysters in the area constitute an RPA2. The Proposed Home Sites, Access Drive, and Surface Water Management Systems The proposed home sites are on separate, recorded lots ranging in size from 4.5 acres to 6.5 acres. The home sites would have 6,000 square feet of "footprint." The houses would be constructed on stilts. There would be a single access driveway to the home sites, ending in a cul-de-sac. The displacement of wetlands that would have been required for the side slopes of the access drive and cul-de-sac was reduced by proposing a vertical retaining wall on the western or interior side of the drive. Each home site has a dry retention pond to store and treat stormwater runoff. The ability of these retention ponds to protect water quality is not disputed by Petitioners. The home sites and access drive would be constructed on the frontal berm that runs parallel to the shoreline. However, these project elements would require a broader and higher base than the existing berm. The total developed area would be about three acres, 1.85 acres of which is now mangrove swamp and salt marsh and 0.87 acres is ditches. The houses would be connected to public water and sewer lines. The existing impoundment berm along the north boundary of the site and the south end of the frontal berm would be "scraped down" to an elevation of one foot. The re-graded area would be planted with salt cordgrass. If there are rivulus marmoratus using the site, scraping down the berms could destroy some of the crab holes they use for habitat. A culvert will be installed beneath the drive at the north side of the proposed project. The culvert at the north and the removal of a portion of the impoundment berm on the south would allow more frequent and prolonged exchange of water between the Lagoon and the interior of the site. Despite the proposed culvert and removal of a portion of the frontal impoundment berm, Dr. Cox and Dr. Gilmore said the elevated (about seven feet above mean high water) home sites would act as a barrier to water. However, Ms. Garrett-Krauss said the pre- and post-construction condition would be the same. Petitioners failed to prove that the elevated home sites would prevent the interior wetlands from being inundated. Two of the ponds on the site would have to be filled to create the home sites. There is no proposal to establish new ponds. Dr. Gilmore believes the ponds are important for the nursery function of the wetlands. Oculina Bank would grant a perpetual conservation easement over 11.69 acres of onsite salt marsh wetlands. It would remove Brazilian Pepper trees, a non-native plant, from the site. At the hearing, Petitioners claimed that a portion of the proposed conservation area was subject to a DOT easement, but they were wrong. Using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method ("UMAM") in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, the parties analyzed the functional values of the site in its pre- and post-project condition. The UMAM analyses conducted by the Department and Oculina Bank showed the project resulted in a gain in functional value for fish and wildlife. Petitioners' UMAM analysis showed a net loss of functional value. The UMAM analyses conducted by Oculina Bank and the Department did not adequately address the loss of the ponds or the impact on rivulus marmoratus. Petitioners contend that the project would have less impact if it were constructed on the most western portion of the site, but Petitioners failed to prove this allegation. Petitioners contend that the impacts of the project have not been minimized because the houses could be smaller. Petitioners do not say how small a "minimized" house should be. Of course, meeting the requirement to minimize impacts does not mean only teepees are allowed. The Department has some discretion in determining, under the circumstances of each permit application, whether reasonable reductions in impacts have been made by a permit applicant. Oculina Bank proposes to build on the most disturbed area of the site and it made costly1/ design changes to reduce impacts to wetlands. These factors, if combined with a demonstration that Oculina Bank would restore the site to create a net improvement for fish and other wildlife, would provide a reasonable basis for the Department to determine that the project impacts were minimized. However, Respondents' evidence that the project would result in a net environmental improvement was contradicted by Petitioners' evidence regarding the refuge and nursery functions of the wetlands and the project's adverse impacts to those functions. Petitioners' evidence on this point was not completely rebutted by Respondents. Oculina Bank did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not adversely impact the value of the refuge and nursery functions provided by the wetlands. This failure of proof was due mainly to insufficient evidence regarding (1) the interrelationship of exisiting channels and open water features on the site, (2) which features are natural and which are man-made, (3) how those features are used by fish, (4) how they will be altered by the project, and (5) how the nursery and refuge functions of the wetlands would be affected.2/ Under the circumstances of this case, it was not sufficient to merely show that the wetlands would be "re-connected" to the Lagoon. The finding made above should not be confused with Petitioners' argument that the non-natural conditions should be maintained on the site. No such finding is made. The Department did not consider the secondary impacts of the home sites, access drive, and surface water management systems because it had determined that there would be a net improvement in environmental value. However, the loss of refuge and nursery functions would prevent a net improvement in environmental value and it would cause secondary impacts to the tarpon and snook fisheries. Petitioners identified other secondary impacts, such as the impacts of human disturbance, which it said should have been considered. The other impacts discussed by Petitioners were considered by the Administrative Law Judge and it is found that those impacts are insignificant. The Proposed Docks Petitioners' original objection to the proposed project and their decision to file a petition for hearing appears to have been caused by Oculina Bank's proposal to build docks over 500 feet in length. The dock lengths in the final revision to the project vary in length from 212 to 286 feet. The docks do not extend out more than 20 percent of the width of the waterbody. The docks do not extend into the publicly maintained navigation channel of the Lagoon. Petitioners claim the docks would cause a navigation hazard. However, because the docks meet the length limit specified in rule chapter 18-21, they are presumed not to create a navigation hazard. Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. To reduce shading of sea grasses, the decking material for the docks would be grated to allow sunlight to pass through the decking. There are no seagrasses at the waterward end of the docks where the terminal platforms would be located and where boats would usually be moored. The dock pilings will be wrapped with an impervious membrane to prevent the treatment chemicals from leaching into the water. The consolidated permit and authorization limits the vessels that can be moored at the docks to vessels with a draft that would allow at least 12 inches of clearance above the submerged lands at mean low water so no harm would be caused to submerged resources. Signs would be posted at each dock providing notice of this restriction. A dock owner is unlikely to know what size boat he or she is limited to, based on a permit condition which is worded this way. To provide reasonable assurance that submerged resources in the area are protected, the permit condition should be stated as a maximum permissible draft. The Department determined that the impacts of the docks, such as the installation of the pilings and shading of seagrasses would de minimis. That determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners claim the Department failed to consider shading, prop wash, and scarring to seagrasses and oyster beds, and increased turbidity. Considering the use of grated decking, restricting vessels to a maximum draft, and other related factors, the more persuasive record evidence establishes that these potential impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Oculina Bank made alternative offers to satisfy the public interest requirement of the Department and Board of Trusteees rules; the first was to contribute $25,000 to the Marine Resource Council to remove five acres of non-native, invasive vegetation and plant mangroves on Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in the Indian River Lagoon; the second was to purchase one tenth (0.1) of a credit from the CGW Mitigation Bank. Petitioners objected to the offers as inadequate for various reasons, but as explained in the Conclusions of Law, neither offer is necessary.
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 that denies the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Land Authorization to Oculina Bank. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2013.
