The Issue The issues in this case are whether IP is entitled to issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number FL0002526-001/001-IW1S ("the proposed permit"), Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-1442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730 (collectively, "the Department authorizations"), which would authorize IP to discharge treated industrial wastewater from its paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, into wetlands which flow to Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay.
Findings Of Fact Introduction A. The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006),2 to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation3 established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the President of FOPB. Mellita A. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane are the adult children of Dr. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane. Dr. Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay with their son Peter. The Adjacent Waters The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class III water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama on the west. The dividing line between the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay is designated as a Class III water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. It is primarily a freshwater river but it is sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) in 1979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, is a large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern part is a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. The Mill 1. Production Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis) acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to be printing and writing paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. There are two paper machines located at the mill. The larger paper machine, designated P5, produces approximately 1,000 tons per day of writing and printing paper. The smaller machine, P4, produces approximately 400 to 500 tons per day of "fluff pulp." 2. The Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant The existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at the mill is described in the revised NPDES permit as a "multi-pond primary and secondary treatment system, consisting of a primary treatment system (primary settling basin, polymer addition, two solids/sludge dewatering basins, and a floating dredge), and secondary treatment system (four ponds in series; two aerated stabilization basins with approximately 2,200 horsepower (HP) of aeration capacity, a nutrient feed system, two non-aerated polishing ponds and a final riffle section to re-aerate the effluent)." The WWTP is a system for reducing the biological oxygen demand (BOD) of the mill's wastewater by bacteria. IP’s wastewater is nutrient deficient when it enters the WWTP. Nutrients in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen must be added for the growth of bacteria. The WWTP begins with a primary settling basin in which suspended solids settle to the bottom. The solids form a sludge that is pumped by hydraulic dredge into two dewatering basins. The dewatering basins are used alternately so that, as one pond is filled, water is removed from the other pond. After being dewatered, the sludge is removed and allowed to dry. Then, it is transported to a landfill located about five miles west of the mill on land owned by IP. The water removed from the dewatering basins moves into to the first aeration basin. The aeration basin has floating aerator devices that add oxygen to facilitate biological conversion of the wastewater. The wastewater then flows sequentially through three more basins where there is further oxygenation and settling of the biological solids. The discharge from the fourth settling basin flows through a riffle section where the effluent is aerated using a series of waterfalls. This is the last element of the treatment process from which the mill's effluent enters waters of the state. Chemicals are added during the treatment process to control phosphorus and color. Chemicals are also added to suppress foam. Sanitary wastewater from the mill, after pretreatment in an activated sludge treatment system, is "sewered" to the mill's WWTP and further treated in the same manner as the industrial wastewater. A separate detention pond collects and treats stormwater from onsite and offsite areas and discharges at the same point as the wastewater effluent from the WWTP. Stormwater that falls on the industrial area of the mill is processed through the WWTP. The discharge point from the WWTP, and the point at which the effluent is monitored for compliance with state effluent limitations, is designated D-001, but is also called the Parshall Flume. The effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to an area of natural wetlands. After passing through the wetlands, the combined flow runs through a pipe that enters Elevenmile Creek from below the surface. This area is called the "boil" because the water can be observed to boil to the surface of Elevenmile Creek. From the boil, the mill effluent flows approximately 14 miles down (apparently misnamed) Elevenmile Creek to upper Perdido Bay. Regulatory History of the Mill Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The EPA issued St. Regis an NPDES permit in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its WWTP in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit for its modified WWTP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class III water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged.4 In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for a regular operating permit and requested a temporary operating permit (TOP), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 ("the 1989 Consent Order"). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violation of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (DO), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommended measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies, which will be referred to collectively in this Recommended Order as "the Livingston studies." The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The TOP established the following specific effluent discharge limitations for the mill: Monthly Average Maximum Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Mar-Oct) 4,500 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 5,100 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Mar-Oct) 8,000 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 11,600 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day Iron 3.5 mg/l Specific Conductance 2,500 micromhos/cm Zinc .075 mg/l The limits stated above for iron, specific conductance, and zinc were derived from the variance granted to Champion. Champion was also granted variances from the water quality standards for biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and DO. The 1989 Consent Order, TOP, and variance were the subject of the Recommended Order and Final Order issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. v. Champion International Corporation, 89 ER FALR 153 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). Champion's deviation from the standards for iron, zinc, and specific conductance pursuant to the variance was determined to present no significant risk of adverse effect on the water quality and biota of Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. The mill effluent's effect on transparency (reduced by color in the mill effluent) was considered a potentially significant problem. However, because it was found that there was no practicable means known or available to reduce the color, and there was insufficient information at that time to determine how Champion's discharge of color was affecting the biota, Champion was allowed to continue its discharge of color into Elevenmile Creek pending the results of the Livingston studies. In the administrative hearing, the petitioners argued that it was unreasonable to put off compliance for five years, but the hearing officer determined that five years was reasonable under the circumstances. One finding in the Recommended Order and a reason for recommending approval of the TOP and Consent Order was: After the studies referred to in the consent order, the Department will not allow Champion additional time to study problems further. Significant improvements will be required within the five year period and at the end of that period, the plant will be in compliance with all water quality standards or will be denied an operating permit, with related enforcement action. The requirement of the 1989 Consent Order that Champion be in compliance with all applicable standards by December 1994, was qualified with the words "unless otherwise agreed." In considering this wording, the hearing officer opined that any change in the compliance deadline "would require a new notice of proposed agency action and point of entry for parties who might wish to contest any modification in the operational requirements, or changes in terms of compliance with water quality standards." The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. Instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. In summary, the permit requirements currently applicable to the operation of the Cantonment paper mill are contained in the following documents: January 3, 1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) December 13, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance 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) During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmile Creek or the Escambia River. In 2001, IP and Champion merged and IP applied to the Department to have the mill permit and related authorizations transferred to IP. Dr. Lane formally challenged the proposed transfer, but she was determined to lack standing. One conclusion of law in the Recommended Order issued in the 2001 administrative case was that the mill was in compliance with the consent order, TOP, and variance. That conclusion was not based on a finding that Champion was in compliance with all applicable water quality standards, but that the deadline for compliance (December 1, 1994) had been extended indefinitely by the pending permit renewal application. In 2001, Dr. Lane twice petitioned the Department for a declaratory statement regarding the Department's interpretation of certain provisions of the 1989 Consent Order. The first petition was denied by the Department because Dr. Lane failed to adequately state her interests and because she was a party in a pending case in which the Consent Order was at issue. Dr. Lane second petition was denied for similar reasons. Over 14 years after the deadline established in the 1989 TOP for the mill to be in compliance with all applicable standards in Elevenmile Creek, IP is still not meeting all applicable standards. However, the combination of (1) Consent Order terms that contemplated unspecified future permit requirements based on yet-to-be-conducted studies, (2) the wording in the TOP that tied the deadline for compliance to the expiration of the TOP, and (3) the administrative extension of the TOP, kept the issue of Champion's and IP's compliance in a regulatory limbo. It increased the Department's discretion to determine whether IP was in compliance with the laws enacted to protect the State's natural resources, and reduced the opportunity of interested persons to formally disagree with that determination. The Proposed Authorizations A. In General In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to a 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP5, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue the proposed NPDES permit, together with Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-4442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730. An exemption from water quality criteria in conjunction with the experimental use of wetlands for wastewater treatment is provided for in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). The proposed exemption order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed waiver order is associated with the experimental use of wetlands exemption and relieves IP of the necessity to comply with two exemption criteria related to restricting public access to the area covered by the exemption. The Department and IP contend that restricting public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes is unnecessary. The proposed Consent Order is an enforcement document that is necessary if the mill is to be allowed to operate despite the fact that its wastewater discharge is causing violations of water quality standards. A principal purpose of the proposed Consent Order is to impose a time schedule for the completion of corrective actions and compliance with all state standards. The proposed Consent Order would supersede the 1989 Consent Order. The Proposed NPDES Permit 1. WWTP Upgrades IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a modest reduction of BOD and TSS. Upgraded pond 1 is expected to convert soluble BOD to suspended solids and to accomplish other biological conversions seven or eight times faster than the current pond 1. The modification of pond 3 to an activated sludge system is expected to more rapidly remove and recycle the solids back into pond 1. Pond 3 will have a much larger bacterial population to treat the effluent. There would also be additional pH control at the end of pond 3. IP would continue to use its Rock Crossing Landfill for disposal of wastewater sludge removed from the WWTP. Authorization for the landfill is part of the proposed NPDES permit. Groundwater monitoring beneath the landfill is required. The WWTP upgrades would include increased storm surge capacity by converting two existing aeration and settling basins (ponds 2 and 4) to storm surge basins. The surge basins would allow the mill to manage upsets and to withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event of 11 inches of rain. Rainfall that falls into the production areas would flow to the WWTP, and be impounded in ponds 2 and 4. After the storm event this impounded water would flow back through the WWTP where it would be treated before flowing through the compliance point and into the pipeline to the wetland tract. The Department required IP to monitor for over 129 pollutants in its stormwater runoff from the mill’s manufacturing facility, roads, parking lots, and offsite nonpoint sources. No pollutants were found in the stormwater at levels of concern. The average volume of mill discharge would be mgd. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP along with other process wastewater, be treated in the same manner in the WWTP, and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. 2. Effluent Limitations The effluent limitations required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based and are designed to limit the amount of pollutants that may be discharged per ton of product produced. The Cantonment mill has not had a problem in meeting TBELs. The TBELs that IP must meet are in the "Cluster Rule" promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department. The mill already meets the TBELS applicable to its current bleaching operation. In fact, EPA determined that the mill was performing in the top 5 percent of similar mills in the nation. The mill would have to meet the TBELs for a brown kraft operation if that conversion is made by IP. The proposed permit also imposes water quality- based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. For example, the TBEL for BOD for similar pulp and paper mills is 15,943 pounds per day (ppd) on a monthly average, but the WQBEL for BOD for the Cantonment mill would be 4,500 ppd in summer and 5,100 ppd in winter. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. The proposed permit also establishes daily maximum limits (the most that can be discharged on any single day). For BOD, the daily maximum limit is 9,000 ppd. William Evans, the Department employee with primary responsibility for the technical review of the proposed Department authorizations, said that setting the daily maximum limit at twice the monthly average was a standard practice of the Department. The maximum daily limits are not derived from the Livingston studies. Dr. Glen Daigger, a civil and environmental engineer, designed a model for the WWTP and determined the modifications necessary to enable the WWTP's discharge to meet all TBELs and WQBELs. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. 3. Discharge to the Wetland Tract IP proposes to relocate its discharge to the wetland tract as a means to end decades of failure by the mill to meet water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek. Discharging to the wetland tract, which flows to the marine waters of lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay, avoids many of the problems associated with trying to meet the more stringent water quality standards applicable in a freshwater stream. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands so that their full assimilative capacity is utilized. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay and lower Elevenmile Creek. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silviculture activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, a point designated D-003, it would be re-aerated6 and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged at D-003 would flow by gravity a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter, an expert in hydrology, soils, and forested wetlands, indicated that the effluent discharged at D-003 will move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be about one-half inch. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline and berm modifications in the wetland tract were permitted by the Department in 2003 through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. No person filed a petition to challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and is referred to as the No Significant Adverse Impact (NSAI) analysis. A year of "baseline data" on the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes was collected and submitted to the Department for use in developing the NSAI analysis, but was not made a part of the record in this case. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The Exemption for Experimental Use of Wetlands Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1) provides an exemption from water quality criteria for the experimental use of wetlands. The proposed Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order sets forth "interim limits" for pH, DO, color, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order also states that IP may petition for alternative water quality criteria pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 66D.300(1)(b)(c) and (d). The exemption is for 5 years beginning with the commencement of discharge into the wetland tract at D-003. The exemption it can be renewed by IP by application to the Department. The Waiver To qualify for the experimental use of wetlands exemption, Florida Administrative Code Rules 62- 660.300(1)(a)3 and 4 require, respectively, that the public be restricted from the exempted wetland area and that the waters not be used for recreation. IP proposes to prevent public access to the area of the wetland tract where the effluent distribution system is located. This is the freshwater area of the wetland tract and includes the four berms. However, IP does not want, nor believe it is necessary, to prevent public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes within the tidal marsh below berm 4. These lakes are accessible by boat from Perdido Bay and are used now by the public for boating and fishing. The Proposed Consent Order The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge form Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given 24 months to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At least 25 percent of the mill's effluent must be diverted to the wetland tract. At least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract when the new facilities begin operations. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to increase another 25 percent every three months thereafter so that three years after issuance of the permit 100 percent of the effluent is being discharged into the wetland tract and there is no longer a discharge at D-001 into Elevenmile Creek.7 The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limitations that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the 24-month construction period when the mill will continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12-month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply at D-003 when 100 percent of the discharge is into the wetland tract. They include the interim limits for specific conductance, pH, DO, color, and turbidity established through the experimental use of wetland exemption. The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit a report within six months with the results of the 2004 transparency study. The Department must be satisfied that the study shows the transparency standard will not be violated before the wetlands can be used for the discharge. This report has already been submitted to the Department, but the Department has not yet completed its review of the report. Nevertheless, it was admitted into the record as IP Exhibit 79. The proposed Consent Order provides that, in the event IP's does not receive treated sanitary wastewater from the planned ECUA facility, IP will notify the Department and submit an alternate compliance plan to the Department for the Department's approval. The submittal and approval of an alternate compliance plan would extend the time for compliance with water quality standards by another six months. The Department amended the proposed Consent Order at the conclusion of the hearing to provide for notice to the public and an opportunity for persons to object to the Department's action on any alternate compliance plan. The Consent Order requires a "Plan of Action" to determine "whether there remains a critical period for ortho-phosphate loading to lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay." The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit within 97 months (which would allow for five years of discharge to the wetland tract) a final report on whether there has been significant adverse impacts in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes resulting from the discharge of effluent pursuant to the interim limits for pH, DO, specific conductance, turbidity, and color. If the NSAI analysis shows no significant adverse impact has occurred, the proposed Consent Order contemplates that IP or the Department would establish alternative water quality criteria that would apply permanently in the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly progress reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. The Consent Order imposes a "stipulated penalty" of $500 per day for noncompliance with its terms. It also contains a statement that a violation of its terms may subject IP to civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. The Principal Factual Disputes A. The Evidence in General Much of the water quality and biological data presented by Petitioners were limited in terms of the numbers of samples taken, the extent of the area sampled, and the time period covered by the sampling. Much of the expert testimony presented by Petitioners was based on limited data, few field investigations, and the review of some, but not all relevant permit documents.8 On the other hand, the Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Even Dr. Lane called the Livingston studies "huge" and "amazing." Therefore, with regard to the factual issues raised by Petitioners that involved scientific subjects investigated in the Livingston studies, Petitioners' data and the expert opinions based on those data were generally of much less weight than the data and conclusions of the Livingston studies. However, the Livingston studies did not address all of the factual issues in dispute. Some of the evidence presented by Petitioners regarding historical water quality conditions in Perdido Bay and Elevenmile Creek was lay testimony. The lay testimony was competent and sufficient to prove the existence of environmental conditions that are detectable to the human senses, such as an offensive smell, a dark color, or a sticky texture. Historical Changes in Perdido Bay Petitioners claim that, before the Cantonment mill began operations in the 1940s, Perdido Bay was a rich and diverse ecosystem and a beautiful place for swimming, fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Petitioners blame the mill effluent for all the adverse changes they say have occurred in Perdido Bay. Petitioners claim that the water in Perdido Bay was much clearer before the mill was built. James Lane, who has lived on the Bay for 65 years, said he began to notice in the late 1940s that the water was becoming dark and filled with wood fibers. Mr. Lane recalls that there used to be an abundance of fish in the Perdido Bay, including croakers, pinfish, flounder, redfish, minnows, and catfish. Now Mr. Lane sees few of these fish in the Bay and he believes the remaining fish are unfit to eat because they look diseased to him. Mr. Lane said there were extensive areas of sea grasses in the Bay which supported large numbers of shrimp, crabs, and mussels, but these grasses are now gone. The Lane family used to enjoy swimming in Perdido Bay but stopped swimming years ago because the water felt sticky and often had a brown foam or scum on the surface. Mr. Lane and others members of FOPB claim to have gotten infections from swimming in the Bay. Mr. Lane and other witnesses described the odor of Elevenmile Creek near the mill as unpleasant and, at times, offensive. They consider the Creek to be too polluted for swimming. Donald Ray, who has been a Department biologist for 30 years, said he has received many complaints from citizens about the conditions in Perdido Bay. He said the foam that occurs in Perdido Bay is not natural foam, but one that persists and leaves a stain on boats. On the other hand, it is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the ecological problems of Perdido Bay are due primarily to the opening of Perdido Pass around 1900. The opening of the pass allowed Gulf waters to enter Perdido Bay and caused salinity stratification in the Bay, with marine waters on the bottom and fresh water from the Perdido River, Elevenmile Creek, and other tributaries on the top. The stratification occurs regularly in the lower Bay, but only during low flow conditions in most of the upper Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek. It restricts DO exchange between the upper and lower water layers and results in low DO levels in the lower layer. Low DO, or "hypoxia," is the primary cause of reduced biological diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston's initial study of the Perdido Bay system (1988-91) included an investigation of historical conditions, using documents and maps, anecdotal statements of area residents, as well as historic water quality and sediment data. Dr. Livingston found general agreement from most sources that: [P]rior to the 1940s, the various rivers and the bay in the Perdido Basin were quite different from what they are today. Eyewitness accounts from 1924 indicate a bay that was clear and "bluish" in color; the bottom could be seen at depths of five feet. According to resident' accounts, seagrasses grew from Garth Point to Witchwood; the grassbeds provided cover for many shrimp that were taken at the time. Flounder were taken with gigs and crabs were taken with hand nets. According to these accounts, the water from the various rivers and creeks in the area was relatively clear, and white sand/gravel bottoms were dominant forms of habitat in the freshwater and estuarine systems. The water was tea- colored but clear. Redfish, trout, blue crabs, shrimp, and mullet were abundant. * * * [T]hrough the early 1900s, the Elevenmile Creek was said to be crystal clear with soft white sand and good fishing. * * * According to various reports, in the early 1950s, the waters of Elevenmile Creek turned black, with concentrations of foam observed floating on the surface. By 1986, more than 28 million gallons of largely untreated effluent was flowing into the Elevenmile Creek- Perdido Bay system each day. Experiments by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission had shown that the creek waters were lethal. The Florida Board of Health reported that Elevenmile Creek was "grossly polluted" and that Perdido Bay had been "greatly degraded within the 1.5 mile radius of where Elevenmile Creek dumped into the bay." Nevertheless, Dr. Livingston discounted much of this historical record, especially with regard to the belief that the mill's effluent had adversely affected Perdido Bay, because it was not based on what he considers reliable scientific data. He found "little evidence in the long- term sediment record of a direct response to historical activities of the pulp and paper mill, suggesting that the flushing capacity of Perdido Bay quickly diluted effluents that enter Perdido Bay from Elevenmile Creek." The evidence is persuasive that the salinity stratification in Perdido Bay is a major cause of low DO in the Bay.9 However, the stratification does not explain all of the observed changes in water quality, biological productivity, and recreational values. The stratification does not account for the markedly better conditions in the Bay that existed before the Cantonment paper mill began operations. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. As recently as 2005, there were major toxic blooms of heterosigma in Tee and Wicker Lakes caused by increased nutrient loading from the mill. Other competent evidence showed that the mill's effluent has created nuisance conditions in the past, such as foam and scum, which adversely affected the recreational values of these public waters. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay, because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Petitioners were justified in feeling frustrated in having their concerns about the adverse impacts of the mill's effluent discounted for many years, and in having to wait so long for an effective regulatory response. However, with regard to many of their factual disputes, Petitioners' evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the dates of observations, the locations of observations, and in other respects, to distinguish the relative contribution of the mill effluent from other factors that contributed to the adverse impacts in the Bay, such as salinity stratification, natural nutrient loading from the Perdido River and other tributaries, and anthropogenic sources of pollution other than the paper mill.10 Petitioners generally referred to the mill effluent and its impacts to Perdido Bay as if they have been relatively constant for 65 years. The Livingston studies, however, showed clearly that the mill effluent and its impacts, as well as important factors affecting the impacts, such as drought, have frequently changed. Focusing on the fact that the average daily BOD loading allowed under the proposed permit would be same as under the 1989 TOP (4,500 ppd), Petitioners remarked several times at the final hearing that the proposed permit for the mill was no different than the existing permit. According to Petitioners, if the mill is allowed to operate under the proposed permit, one can predict that the future adverse impacts to Perdido Bay will be the same as the past adverse impacts. However, the 1989 TOP and the proposed permit are very different. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the impacts would be the same. Petitioners' evidence was generally insufficient to correlate past adverse impacts to Perdido Bay with the likely impacts that would occur under the proposed permit. In contrast, that was the focus of the Livingston studies. Development of the WQBELs Whether Perdido Bay is an Alluvial System and Whether Elevenmile Creek is a Blackwater Stream Alluvial systems are generally characterized by relatively high nutrient inputs from tributaries and associated wetlands that provide for high biological productivity in the receiving bay or estuary. Petitioners disagree with Dr. Livingston's characterization of the Perdido Bay system as an alluvial system. Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Ray, a Department biologist, who said that the Perdido River is not an alluvial river and the natural nutrient loadings to Perdido Bay are less than would occur in an alluvial system. Although it is curious that two experienced biologists cannot agree on whether Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system, the dispute is immaterial because it was not shown by Petitioners that any of the four proposed Department authorizations is dependent on the applicability of the term "alluvial." The WQBELs developed by Dr. Livingston, for example, were not dependent on a determination that Perdido Bay meets some definition of an alluvial system, but were based on what the data indicated about actual nutrient loadings into Perdido Bay and the Bay's ecological responses to the loadings. If the dispute is not immaterial, then Dr. Livingston's opinion that Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system is more persuasive, because he has greater experience and knowledge of the coastal bay systems on the Florida Panhandle than does Mr. Ray. Petitioners also take exception to Dr. Livingston's characterization of Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek. Petitioners claim Elevenmile Creek is naturally clear to "slightly tannic" stream. This dispute, however, is also immaterial because the proposed permit calls for the termination of the mill's discharge to Elevenmile Creek, including its contribution of color to the Creek. Petitioners assert that Dr. Livingston's characterizations of Perdido Bay as an alluvial system and Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek show he is biased and that his "overall analysis" lacks credibility. Dr. Livingston's opinions on these points do not show bias nor compromise the credibility of his overall analysis of the Perdido Bay system, which is actually the product of many scientists and based on 18 years of data.11 2. Selection of 1988 and 1989 Mill Loadings as a Benchmark for the WQBELs Generally, the Department establishes effluents limits for nutrients based on Chlorophyl A analysis. However, the Livingston studies showed that Chlorophyl A was not significantly associated with plankton blooms in Perdido Bay. Therefore, the Department accepted Dr. Livingston's recommendation to base the WQBELs for nutrients on the nutrient loading from the mill in 1988 and 1989, which the Livingston studies showed were good years for Perdido Bay with respect to its biological health. Phytoplankton are a fundamental component of the food web in Perdido Bay. The number of phytoplankton species is a sensitive indicator of the overall ecological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies showed that the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate from the mill had a direct effect on the number of phytoplankton species. In the years when the mill discharged high loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate, there were toxic algae blooms and reduced numbers of phytoplankton species. In 1988 and 1989, when the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate were lower, there were no toxic algae blooms, and there were relatively high numbers of phytoplankton species. Petitioners dispute that 1988 and 1989 are appropriate benchmarks years for developing the WQBELs because Petitioners claim there were high nutrient loadings and algae blooms in those years. Mr. Ray testified that the Department received citizen complaints about algae blooms in those years. Dr. Livingston's analysis was more persuasive, however, because it distinguished types of algae blooms according to their harmful effect on the food web and was based on considerably more water quality and biological data. Petitioners also presented water quality data collected from 1971 to 1994 by the Bream Fishermen Association at one sampling station in the northeastern part of Perdido Bay, which indicate that in 1988 and 1989, the concentrations of nutrients were sometimes high. The proposed nutrient WQBELs were derived from data about the actual response of the Perdido Bay ecosystem over time to various inputs. The sampling data from the Bream Fishermen Association were not correlated to ecosystem response and, therefore, are insufficient to refute Dr. Livingston's evidence that 1988 and 1989 were years of relatively high diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Furthermore, nutrients loadings would be reduced under the proposed permit. 3. DO and Sediment Oxygen Demand The parties agreed that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is a major reason for the low DO in Perdido Bay in areas where there is salinity stratification. SOD is caused by the bacterial degradation of particulate organic matter that settles to the bottom. SOD decreases DO in the lower water layer, but also can cause a reduction of DO in the surface layer. Low DO has substantially reduced the biological productivity of Perdido Bay. Thomas Gallagher, an environmental engineer and water quality modeling expert, showed that even without the mill discharge, DO in the bottom waters of Perdido Bay would fall below the applicable Class III water quality standard of 5 mg/l. Low DO conditions are now a "natural" characteristic of the Bay, usually occurring during summer and early fall when freshwater flows are low and temperatures are high. At these times, surface water DO levels are usually above the state standard, but DO in the bottom waters usually range between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l. Petitioners claim that the dominant source of the sediment in Perdido Bay is the carbon and nutrient loading in the mill's effluent that flows into the Bay from Elevenmile Creek. Mr. Ray, who sampled sediments in Perdido Bay over several years for the Department, believes that the mill effluent is the main source of the sediment and, consequently, the sediment oxygen demand. Dr. Livingston did extensive sediment analyses in Perdido Bay. He compared the data with sediment data from other bays on the Florida Panhandle. It is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the mill effluent contributes little to the sediments or SOD in Perdidio Bay. His initial three-year study concluded: [T]he hypoxic conditions of Elevenmile Creek are due, in part, to mill discharges. However, low dissolved oxygen conditions at depth in Perdido Bay are not due to the release of mill effluents from Elevenmile Creek, and can actually be attributed to a long history of human activities that include alteration of the hydrological interactions at the gulfward end of the estuary. The entry of saline water from the Gulf and the resulting stratification have been coupled with various forms of human development that release carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds into the estuary. The landward movement of high-salinity water from the Gulf of Mexico, laden with various types of oxygen-consuming compounds from various sources, together with oxygen demand from sediments to the lower water column that is isolated from reaeration due to salinity stratification, are thus responsible for a large portion of the observed hypoxic conditions at depth in Perdido Bay. [The paper mill] is responsible for a relatively small amount of these oxygen-consuming effects. In East Bay, which is a part of Escambia Bay and a relatively pristine system, there was SOD that caused DO to fall below standards in the lower water layer. Dr. Livingston also found severe oxygen deprivation at times in the lower waters of the Styx River and Perdido River, which do not receive mill effluent. Dr. Livingston believes the low DO that occasionally occurs in these rivers is due to agricultural runoff, urban discharges, and natural organic loading from adjacent wetlands. There was extensive evidence, some of which was presented by Petitioners, showing that the mill loadings of carbon and nutrients are less than the loadings from the Perdido River. Mr. Gallagher concluded that the sediment in the Bay is mostly "terrestrial carbon," and not from the mill's effluent. His water quality modeling work determined that the mill's effluent reduced bottom layer DO by about 0.1 mg/l. Dr. Lane believes that the organic solids in the mill's effluent are accumulating in Perdido Bay sediments, but Mr. Gallagher pointed out that degrading solids cannot accumulate because they are degrading. In addition, Mr. Gallagher said that logic dictates that solids that have not settled out after spending several days in the settling basins of IP's WWTP are not going to readily settle in the more turbulent environment of Perdido Bay. Some of the solids are oxidizing or being transported into the Gulf. Mr. Gallagher determined that in summer and late fall, 60 percent of the water in the bottom layer in the upper Bay is from the Gulf and almost all the rest is from the Perdido River. He believes only 0.1 to 2.0 percent of the water in the bottom layer is mill effluent. Dr. Livingston responded to the BOD and carbon issues that "these Petitioners raised over the years" by investigating them as part of the Livingston studies. He found no relationship between loading and DO. Dr. Livingston concluded that the mill was not having much effect on SOD. Dr. Livingston and Mr. Gallagher referred to a carbon isotope study of the sediment in Perdido Bay by Coffin and Cifuentes. The isotope study was a part of the initial three-year Livingston study entitled "Ecological Study of the Perdido Bay Drainage System." The study identified a unique carbon isotope in the mill's effluent and looked for traces of the isotope in the sediments of Perdido Bay. Very little of the carbon isotope was found in the sediments, suggesting that the mill's effluent was not contributing much to the sediments. The carbon isotope study was not offered into evidence. Petitioners assert that the isotope study is hearsay and cannot be used to support a finding of fact.12 However, Dr. Livingston's opinion about the sources of the sediment was not based solely on the isotope study. The isotope study was consistent with his other studies and with Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling analysis. Therefore, the conclusions of the isotope study serve to support and explain Dr. Livingston's expert opinion that the mill effluent is not the primary source of the sediment and low DO in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston summarized his opinion regarding DO and SOD as follows: "all of these lines of evidence, from all the bays that I have worked in and from them scientific literature and from our own studies, every line of evidence simply eliminated the pulp mill as the primary source of the low dissolved oxygen in the bay." 4. Long-term BOD BOD is a measurement of the oxygen demand exerted by the oxidation of carbon, nitrogen, and the respiration of algae. A five-day BOD analysis is the standard test used in the regulatory process. The use of the standard five-day BOD measurement is not restricted to organic material that is expected to completely degrade in five days. Five days is simply the time period selected to standardize the measurement. For example, the five-day BOD analysis is used in the regulation of domestic wastewater even though most of the organic material in domestic wastewater takes about 60 days to degrade and would exert an oxygen demand throughout the 60 days. It was undisputed that paper mill effluent will continue to consume DO after five days. One estimate given was that it would take 100 days to completely degrade. Some of the naturally occurring organic material flowing into Perdido Bay from the Perdido River and Gulf of Mexico would also include material with long-term BOD. Petitioners claim that long-term BOD analysis is essential to determine the true impacts of the mill's effluent on Perdido Bay, but they failed to show that the Livingston studies did not consider long-term BOD.13 The evidence shows that Dr. Livingston's studies accounted for DO demand in all its forms and for any duration. Dr. Livingston's studies focused on the response of Perdido Bay's food web to nutrients and various other inputs as they changed over time. If long-term BOD was having an adverse effect on the food web, the Livingston studies were designed to detect that effect. Dr. Livingston's opinion is that long-term BOD is not a significant problem for Perdido Bay because the Bay is part of a dynamic system and the sediments are regularly flushed out or otherwise recycled in a matter of a few months, not years.14 5. Carbon Dr. Lane, who is a marine biologist, believes a major reason for low DO in Perdido Bay is "organic carbonaceous BOD." However, Dr. Lane presented no evidence other than statements of the theoretical process by which carbon from the mill would cause low DO in the Bay. She presented no scientific data from Perdido Bay to prove her theory.14 Dr. Livingston said that 16 years of studies in the Bay have found DO and carbon to be "totally uncorrelated." Other Water Quality Issues 1. Toxicity Petitioners allege that the mill effluent has had occasional problems passing toxicity tests. Un-ionized ammonia is the likely cause, and the reduction of un-ionized ammonia in the proposed permit and the distribution of the effluent over the wetland tract should prevent toxicity problems from recurring. Dr. Livingston examined tissue samples from various fish and invertebrates and found low levels of bioconcentrating chlorine compounds in Perdido Bay that he believes were "probably associated with discharges from the Pensacola mill." Although they are toxic substances, Dr. Livingston found no diseased organisms and no evidence of food web magnification of these potentially bioaccumulable compounds. Mr. Ray testified that Perdido Bay was the worst of all the bays he has studied in terms of high sediment metals. Most of his sediment sampling was done in 1977 through 1983, years before the Livingston studies got started. His knowledge about subsequent years was based on only two samples, one in 1988 and another in 2005.16 Dr. Lane did an analysis of 12 sediment samples in Perdido Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek in 1999 and concluded that "Eleven Mile Creek appears to be the source of all elevated levels [of metals] except silver." The Livingston studies included toxics analysis of Perdido Bay sediments, including metals, dioxin, and other chlorinated organic compounds. Dr. Livingston testified that metal concentrations in the sediments of Elevenmile Creek did not differ from the metal concentrations in the Perdido River and other streams in the area. The concentrations were not significantly different from concentrations in other bays he has studied that do not have a paper mill discharge. 2. Mutagenic Compounds Petitioners claim that there are chemicals in paper mill effluent that are mutagenic and are causing changes in the sex of fish. They introduced an exhibit from the Department's exhibit list (DEP Exhibit 38) that discussed investigations of effluent from the Cantonment mill and other Florida paper mills which found abnormally high testosterone levels and related mutations in female Gambusia fish. The most recent such study16 implicates androgens produced by the microbial degradation of natural chemicals in the trees pulped at the mills, especially softwood trees (pines), as the cause. Petitioners believe IP's proposal to begin using 100 percent pine at the Cantonment mill could cause mutations in fish and other animals exposed to the mill's effluent. Although IP and the Department are aware of the sex change studies, there was no evidence presented that the subject was investigated or addressed by them in the permitting process. DEP Exhibit 38 is hearsay and no non-hearsay evidence was presented on the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent. Therefore, no finding of fact in this Recommended Order can be based on the data and analysis in DEP Exhibit 38.18 Furthermore, Petitioners did not raise the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent discharge in their petitions for hearing or in the pre-hearing stipulation.19 Antidegradation Policy Petitioners claimed the proposed permit violated the antidegradation policy for surface waters established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(1). An element of that policy is to require, for any discharge that degrades water quality, a demonstration that the degradation is necessary or desirable under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(1)(a) contains a list of factors to be considered and balanced in applying the antidegradation policy. These include consideration of whether the proposed project would be beneficial to public health, safety, or welfare and whether the discharge would adversely affect the, conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreational values. The greater weight of the evidence supports the position of IP and the Department that the proposed discharge to the wetland tract would be an improvement over the existing circumstances. However, as discussed below, there was an insufficient demonstration that the discharge would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community within the wetland tract, and there was an insufficient demonstration that the Perdido River OFW would not be significantly degraded. Without sufficient demonstrations on these points, it is impossible to find that the degradation has been minimized. Petitioners did not prove that the proposed project was not in the public interest, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because IP did not make a sufficient demonstration regarding potential adverse impacts on the biological community within the wetland tract and on the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to prove compliance with Florida's antidegradation policy. Perdido River OFW Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(2) contains the standards applicable to OFWs and prohibits a discharge that significantly degrades an OFW unless the proposed discharge is clearly in the public interest or the existing ambient water quality of the OFW would not be lowered.20 Petitioners contend that the water quality of the Perdido River would be significantly degraded by the mill's effluent under the authorizations. Mr. Gallagher's modeling analysis predicted improved water quality in the Perdido River for DO and several other criteria over the conditions that existed in 1979, the year the river was designated as an OFW. However, the modeling also predicted that the discharge would reduce the DO in the river (as it existed in 1979) by .01 mg/l under unusual conditions of effluent loading at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during a drought. Mr. Gallagher's modeling indicated that a very small (less than 0.1 mg/l) reduction in DO in the surface water of the lower Perdido River would occur as a result of the proposed project. He considered that to be an "insignificant" effect and it was within the model's range of error. However, IP made the wrong comparisons in its modeling analysis to determine compliance with the OFW rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2). Mr. Gallagher used the model to compare the DO levels in the Perdido River that would result from the mill's discharge of BOD at the proposed permit limit of 4,500 ppd with the predicted DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis was discharging 5,100 ppd of BOD. IP should have compared the DO levels resulting from the proposed permit with the actual DO levels in 1979, or at least the DO levels that the model would have simulated using actual BOD loadings by St. Regis in 1979. The DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis had discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD are irrelevant. No DO data from 1979 were presented at the hearing and no explanation was given for why DO data for 1979 were not used in the analysis. No evidence was presented that St. Regis discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD as a monthly average in 1979.21 It might have discharged substantially less.22 Petitioners did not prove that the proposed permit would significantly degrade the Perdido River, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because the wrong anti-degradation comparison was made, IP failed to provide reasonable assurance that the Perdido River would not be significantly degraded by the proposed discharge. The Experimental Use of Wetlands Exemption Petitioners claim that IP did not demonstrate compliance with all the criteria for the experimental use of wetlands exemption. There are seven criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a) that must be met to qualify for the exemption. IP is seeking a waiver from two of the criteria and those will be discussed later in this Recommended Order. Impact on the Biological Community a. In General Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)1 requires a demonstration that "the wetlands ecosystem may reasonably be expected to assimilate the waste discharge without significant adverse impact on the biological community within the receiving waters." Dr. Nutter used a "STELLA" wetland model to predict the effects of discharging mill effluent to the wetland tract. The STELLA model was programmed to evaluate the "water budget" for the wetland tract, as well as simulate the fate of nitrogen, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Petitioners contend that the STELLA model is too limited to adequately assess potential adverse impacts on the biological community, but the model was not the sole basis upon which Dr. Nutter formed his opinions. He also relied on relevant scientific literature, his general knowledge of wetland processes, and on his 40 years of experience in land treatment of wastewater. The STELLA model predicted that there would be about a 10 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus. Dr. Nutter testified that that figure was a conservative prediction and the scientific literature suggests there could be a greater reduction. Wetlands are effective in processing TSS and BOD. Dr. Nutter ran the model with the proposed permit limits and the model predicted 90 to 95 percent BOD removal before the effluent reached berm 4. Dr. Nutter expected pH levels to be in the range of background levels in the wetlands, which vary between 6.5 and 8.0.23 Dr. Nutter predicts that in high flow conditions, there will be more DO in the water flowing from the wetlands into Tee and Wicker Lakes. During low flow conditions, he predicts no change in the DO level. Background DO levels in the wetland tract now range between and 5.0 mg/l. Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling for Perdido Bay assumed that the water flowing from the wetland tract would have a DO level of 2.0 mg/l, which Dr. Nutter believes this is a conservative estimate, meaning it could be higher. Specific Conductance A fundamental premise of the relocated discharge is that it solves the mill's decades-long failure to meet the stricter water quality standards applicable in the fresh waters of Elevenmile Creek because the new receiving waters would be marine waters. However, the majority (about 70 percent) of the wetland tract is a freshwater wetland. The tidal influence does not reach above berm 4 in the wetland tract. Before the mill's effluent reaches marine waters, it would be distributed over the entire freshwater portion of the wetland tract. Dr. Livingston explained that, but for the mill's discharge, minnows and other small "primary" freshwater fish species would be found in Elevenmile Creek. The primary fish cannot tolerate the mill's discharge because the high levels of sodium chloride and sulfide (specific conductance) cause osmoregulatory problems, disrupting their blood metabolism and ion regulation. High conductivity also eliminates sensitive microinvertebrates. Because Tee and Wicker Lakes are in the tidally influenced, southern portion of the wetland tract, the fish and other organisms in the lakes are polyhaline, which means they are adapted to rapid changes in salinity, temperature and other habitat features. That is not true of the organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract. A constructed wetlands pilot project was built in 1990 at the Cantonment mill. The initial operational phase of the pilot project was July 1991 through June 1993. A second phase was conducted for just three months, from September 1997 through December 1997. The pilot project generated some information about "benthic macroinvertebrate diversity," which was "low to moderate." In addition, there were "observations" made of "three amphibian species, three reptile species, approximately 31 bird species, three fish species that were introduced, and two mammal species." The information generated by the pilot project is ambiguous with respect to the effect of the effluent on fish and other organisms attributable to the specific conductance of the effluent, indicating both successes and failures in terms of survival rates. Moreover, the data presented from the pilot wetland project lacks sufficient detail, both with respect to the specific conductivity of the effluent applied to the wetlands and with respect to the response of salt-intolerant organisms to the specific conductivity of the effluent, to correlate the findings of the pilot project with the proposed discharge to the wetland tract. Freshwater wetlands do not have naturally high levels of specific conductance. The specific conductance in the wetland tract is 100 micromhos/cm or less.24 The proposed interim limit for specific conductance for the discharge into the wetland tract is "2,500 micromhos/cm or 50% above background, whichever is greater." Using total dissolved solids (TDS) as a surrogate for analyzing the effects on specific conductance, Dr. Nutter predicted that average TDS effluent concentrations would only be reduced by 1.0 percent.25 His prediction is consistent with the literature on the use of wetlands for wastewater treatment, which indicates wetlands are not effective in reducing TDS and specific conductance. The wetland tract would not assimilate TDS in mill's effluent. The potential exists, therefore, for the discharge to cause specific conductance in the freshwater area of the wetland tract to reach levels that are too high for fish and other organisms which can only live, thrive, and reproduce in waters of lower specific conductance. It was the opinion of Barry Sulkin, an environmental scientist, that the "freshwater community" would be adversely impacted by the salts in the effluent. Although the freshwater area of the wetland tract is not dominated by open water ponds, creeks, and streams,26 the evidence shows that it contains sloughs, creeks, and other surface water flow. No evidence was presented about the biological community associated with the sloughs, creeks, and other waters in the wetland tract, other than general statements about the existing plants and the trees that are being planted. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because IP did not adequately address the impact of increased specific conductance levels on fish and other organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would be assimilated so as not to cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. Tee and Wicker Lakes When the Department issued the proposed exemption order, it did not have sufficient data and analyses regarding Tee and Wicker Lakes to determine with reasonable confidence that these waterbodies would not be adversely impacted by the proposed discharge. A transparency study of the lakes, which IP introduced as an exhibit at the final hearing, had not previously been reviewed by Department staff. Dr. Livingston is still developing data and analyses for the lakes to use in the NSAI analysis. The proposed NSAI monitoring plan states that one of its objectives is to determine the "ecological state" of the tidal ponds, including whether the ponds "could comprise an important nursery area for estuarine populations." In addition, the monitoring is to determine "the normal distributions of salinity, temperature, color, and dissolved oxygen" in the tidal ponds. These are data that must be known before a determination is possible that the discharge would not have a significant adverse impact on the biological community associated with the lakes. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of Tee and Wicker Lakes, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because insufficient data exists regarding baseline conditions in Tee and Wicker Lakes, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would not cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. 2. Public Interest and Public Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)2. requires the applicant to demonstrate that "granting the exemption is in the public interest and will not adversely affect public health or the cost of public health or other related programs." Public Interest Petitioners made much of a statement by Mr. Evans that the public interest consideration in this permit review was “IP’s interest”. Petitioners claimed that this statement was an admission by the Department that it gave no consideration to the public interest. However, in context, Mr. Evan's statement was not such an admission. Moreover, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) expressly provides that the public interest is not confined to activities conducted solely for public benefits, but can also include private activities conducted for private purposes. The proposed exemption order does not directly address the public interest criterion, but it notes that "existing impacted wetlands will be restored." In IP's application for the exemption, it states that the exemption would "contribute to our knowledge of wetlands in general and to the refinement of performance guidelines for the application of pulp mill wastewater to wetlands." Petitioners dispute that the wetland tract is being restored. The evidence shows that some restoration would be accomplished. The natural features and hydrology of the tract have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing for pasture, ditching, and draining. The volume of flow in the discharge would offset the artificial drainage that occurred. A mixture of hardwood tree species would be planted, which would restore more of the diversity found in a natural forested wetland. However, an aspect of the project that could substantially detract from the goal of restoration is the transformation of the freshwater wetlands to an unnatural salty condition. Dr. Nutter said that the salt content of the mill's effluent was equivalent to Gatorade, but for many freshwater organisms, that is too salty. Another public benefit of the exemption that was discussed at the final hearing is that it would allow IP to relocate its discharge from Elevenmile Creek and thus end its adverse impacts to the Creek. That public benefit is not given much weight because IP has not shown that its adverse impacts to Elevenmile Creek cannot be eliminated or substantially reduced by decreasing its production of paper products. The evidence shows only that IP has attempted to solve its pollution problems through environmental engineering.27 A sufficient public interest showing for the purpose of obtaining the experimental use of wetlands exemption should not be a rigorous challenge if all the other exemption criteria are met, because that means the proposed wetland discharge was shown to have no harmful consequences. The public interest showing in this proceeding was insufficient, however, because the other exemption criteria were not met and there is a reasonable potential for harmful consequences. Public Health Petitioners raised the issue of the presence of Klebsiella bacteria, which can be a public health problem when they occur at high levels. The more detection of Klebsiella, however, does not constitute a public health concern. Petitioners did not show that Klebsiella bacteria exist in the mill's effluent at levels that exceed applicable water quality standards. Petitioners also did not present competent evidence about the likely fate of Klebsiella bacteria in the proposed effluent distribution system. Dr. Lane's statement that Klebsiella bacteria might be a problem is not sufficient to rebut IP's prima facie showing that the proposed permit will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards applicable to pathogenic bacteria. Petitioners also point to past incidents of high total coliform concentrations in Elevenmile Creek in support of their contention that the proposed exemption poses a risk to public health. However, these past incidents in Elevenmile Creek are not sufficient to prove that fecal coliform in the effluent discharged to the wetland tract will endanger the public health. IP proposes to restrict access to the wetland distribution system. Furthermore, the fate of bacteria in the wetlands is much different than in the Creek. The more persuasive evidence is that the wetland tract would destroy the bacteria by solar radiation and other mechanisms so that bacteria concentrations in waters accessible by the public would not be at levels which pose a threat to public health. Protection of Potable Water Supplies and Human Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)5. requires the applicant for the exemption to demonstrate that "the presently specified criteria are unnecessary" to protect potable water supplies and human health, which presupposes that the applicant has applied for an exemption from water quality criteria applicable to human health. IP has not requested such an exemption and, therefore, this particular criterion appears to be inapplicable. Even if it were applicable, the evidence does not show that the effluent would cause a problem for potable water supplies or human health. 4. Contiguous Waters Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "the exemption will not interfere with the designated uses of contiguous waters." Contiguous waters, for the purpose of this criterion, would be Elevenmile Creek, Perdido Bay, and the Perdido River. Petitioners argue that Tee and Wicker Lakes should be considered contiguous waters for the purpose of this criterion of the exemption rule. However, Tee and Wicker Lakes are within the exempted wetland tract so they are not contiguous waters. Petitioners contend that IP failed to account for the buildup of detritus in the wetlands and its eventual export to Perdido Bay. Their contention is based primarily on the opinion of Dr. Kevin White, a civil engineer, that treatment wetlands must be scraped or burned to remove plant buildup. However, Dr. Nutter explained that periodic removal of plant material is needed for the relatively small "constructed wetland" treatment systems that Dr. White is familiar with, but should not be needed in the 1,464-acre wetland tract. Nevertheless, because IP did not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed permit and related authorizations would not significantly degrade the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to meet this particular exemption criterion regarding interference with contiguous waters. 5. Scientifically Valid Experimental Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "scientifically valid environmental controls are provided . . . to monitor the long-term effects and recycling efficiency." Petitioners' argument about this particular criterion was largely misplaced. The term "environmental controls" modifies the term "monitor" and connotes only that the experiment would be monitored in a manner that will generate reliable information about long-term effects and performance. For monitoring purposes, IP's proposed NSAI protocol is an innovative and comprehensive plan that complies with this exemption criterion. Petitioners' objections to the lack of sufficient information about Tee and Wicker Lakes is more appropriately an attack on the sufficiency of IP's showing that its discharge would not cause a significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. That issue was discussed above. 6. Duration of the Exemption Petitioners argue that the exemption can not exceed five years in duration, but the time schedules established by the proposed Consent Order and proposed permit would allow the exemption to be in effect for nine years. The Department's exemption order states that the five years does not begin to run until IP begins to discharge effluent at D-003 into the wetland tract. The possibility that IP might seek to renew the exemption after five years does not make the exemption something other than a five-year exemption. The Department's action on the request to renew the exemption would be subject to public review and challenge by persons whose substantial interests are affected. The Waiver The proposed waiver order would excuse IP from compliance with the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a)3. and 4., which require that public access and recreation be restricted in the area covered by the exemption for experimental use of wetlands. Without the waiver, the public would have to be excluded from Tee and Wicker Lakes. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, requires a showing by the person seeking the waiver that the purpose of the underlying statute will be achieved by other means and the application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. Petitioners contend that IP failed to demonstrate substantial hardship. However, Petitioners do not want public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes restricted. The sole reason for their objection to the proposed waiver is apparently to thwart the issuance of the exemption. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, defines "substantial hardship" as a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the waiver. In the proposed waiver order, the Department identifies IP's hardship as the possibility that denial of the waiver could result in denial of IP's NPDES permit and closure of the mill. The proposed waiver order then describes the number of jobs and other economic benefits of the mill that would be lost if the mill were closed. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the Department's interpretation of Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to accept a demonstration of hardship that is associated with denial of the waiver is mistaken. The statute requires that the hardship arise from the application of the rule. In this case, IP must demonstrate that it would suffer substantial hardship if it were required to restrict public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes. Petitioners claimed that IP has no authority to restrict the public from gaining access to Tee and Wicker Lakes because those are public waterbodies which the public has a right to enter and use. A substantial legal hardship for IP in complying with the exemption rule, therefore, is that compliance is impossible. The Consent Order 1. Compliance Schedule Subsections 403.088(2)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes, provide that no permit shall be issued unless a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation of an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system is in place. Petitioners claim the time schedules for compliance are not reasonable. Petitioners presented no competent evidence, however, that the WWTP upgrades, pipeline construction, and other activities required by the proposed permit can be accomplished in a shorter period of time. One recurring theme in the Petitioners' case was that the adverse impacts associated with the continued discharge to Elevenmile Creek should not be allowed to continue, even for an interim period associated with construction of the WWTP upgrades and effluent pipeline. However, Petitioners also advocated the relocation of the discharge to the Escambia River, or to a "constructed wetlands." Both of these alternatives would have required a transition period during which the discharge to Elevenmile Creek would likely have continued. Furthermore, the Consent Order imposes interim limits on the discharge to Elevenmile Creek that would apply immediately upon issuance of the proposed permit. Although altered by the mill's effluent discharge, Elevenmile Creek is now a relatively stable biological system. The proposed permit would effectuate some improvement in the creek and Perdido Bay even during the construction phase. 2. Contingency Plan The proposed Consent Order includes a contingency plan in the event that the NSAI monitoring analysis shows adverse impacts to the biological community within the wetland tract. The plan provides for alternative responses including relocating all or part of the wetland discharge to Elevenmile Creek. Petitioners object to the plan, primarily because they contend it is vague. The provisions in the contingency plan for relocating all or part of the discharge from the wetland tract to Elevenmile Creek, appear to reflect a presumption that the negatives associated with continued discharge to the wetlands would outweigh the negatives associated with returning the discharge to Elevenmile Creek. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where the harm to the biological community of the wetland tract is small in relationship to the harm to the biological community that might have reestablished itself in Elevenmile Creek. Because the selection of an alternative under the contingency plan requires the consideration of data and analyses associated with future events, it is impossible to know at this time whether future action taken by the Department and IP pursuant to the contingency plan would be reasonable. If the contingency plan is intended by the Department and IP to authorize future action when circumstances described in the plan are present, then the plan is too vague. On the other hand, there is adequate detail in the plan if the purpose of the plan is merely to establish a framework for future decision-making that would be subject to permit modification, public review and challenge. Clarification is needed. 2. Penalties Petitioners complained that the stipulated of $500 per day for violations of the proposed Consent Order is too small to provide a deterrent to a company of the size of IP. Petitioners are correct, but did not present evidence to show what size penalty would be appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Denying proposed revised NPDES Permit Number FL0002526- 001/001-IW1S; Disapproving revised Consent Order Number 04-1202; Denying IP's petition for authorization for the experimental use of wetlands; and Denying IP's petition for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the Hearing Officer's view of the project site, the following relevant facts re found: Respondent Sunset Realty Corporation initially applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation on March 2, 1979, for a permit to place 54,600 cubic yards of fill adjacent to Three Sisters Island and waterward of the mean high water line in Charlotte Harbor in order to construct a causeway and a sixty-foot bridge from Boca Grande Isles to Three Sisters Island. The applicant Sunset was notified on May 3, 1979, that adverse comments on the project had been received due to its impact upon biological resources. DER suggested that the application be modified by bridging the entire submerged area to alleviate biological and hydrographic concerns. On June 21, 1979, the respondent Sunset filed a revised application which reduced the volume of fill from 54,600 cubic yards to 25,000 cubic yards and extended the bridge from sixty feet to ninety feet long. The Department of Environmental Regulation forwarded to Lee County a summary of the Department's biological and hydrographic report. Additional information was not requested by the County. On October 31, 1979, the Lee County Commission considered the information made available to them from the Department and passed a resolution giving their approval to the first revision of the project by respondent Sunset. Finding that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance that immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in violation of state water quality standards for Class II waters, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued its Intent to Deny Sunset's permit application on March 24, 1980. After a biological and hydrographic study of the project area, Sunset filed a second revision to its project on June 30, 1980. This revised application requested a permit for 10,000 cubic yards of fill and a 120-foot long bridge. In addition, this revision contained plans to install groins at the south end of Three Sisters Island and on Boca Grande Isles, to place riprap along the face of the fill, to remove and relocate existing oyster bars, to maintain turbidity barriers around the project during construction, and to direct stormwater run-off from the concrete bridge to an upland retention area on Three Sisters Island. It was also stipulated by respondent Sunset at the hearing that it would agree, as a condition of the permit, to replant mangrove vegetation along the shoreline of Three Sisters Island. On July 18, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Letter of Intent to Issue the applicant a permit for the revised project. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not seek reapproval of the revised project from the Lee County Commission because the scope and impact of the revised project were substantially reduced. It is not the policy of DER to request a new local approval for reduced projects. All property within the project boundary including submerged lands to be filled is held in fee simple by respondent Sunset. The waters affected by the proposed project are Class II waters, but are unclassified by the Department of Natural Resources as to shellfish harvesting. The nearest Class II waters which thus far have been approved for commercial shellfish harvesting are located approximately one and a half miles north of the project site. The proposed project would involve the destruction and elimination of approximately one acre of productive marine bottoms. The area has an abundance of grass beds and organisms that constitute a viable marine nursery and habitat. The area is not considered a spawning ground for any significant commercial or sport fish species. While the project will eliminate one acre of shallow water and productive bottom resources, the project should have no permanent effect upon the quality of the remaining surrounding waters. Three different species of mangroves vegetate the shoreline and the project would entail the removal of approximately 2/10 acre of mangroves. As indicated above, the applicant has agreed to insert a condition in the permit to revegetate mangroves around the site. The project will also entail the removal of one or two oyster bars. Live oysters can be removed and relocated by the use of floating cages. Relocation of the oysters to the riprapping and bridge pilings should increase their productivity. While the proposed fill will eliminate a wading bird habitat, birds will not otherwise be affected except during the construction of the project. The area around Three Sisters Island is an excellent fishing ground for line and net fishing for trout, red fish, mullet and sheepshead. Concern was expressed by commercial fishermen at the hearing that the bridge would obstruct net fishing, that the construction of the bridge would drive the fish away temporarily and that the fish, being creatures of habit, would not come back. The 120-foot bridge itself would have a minor effect of approximately 2% upon the restriction of flow in the area. A flow resistance is presently caused by the channel itself, a sharp bend in the channel that occurs at a constriction or spit, and the spit itself. The spit severely restricts flow and the channel needs to be enlarged. The remedial measure proposed is to place groins on the spit and on Boca Grande Isles across the spit. This will gradually enlarge the opening and reduce constriction. The placement of groins could provide a 40% increase in flow through the channel, and the increased circulation will improve the overall system. The two groins proposed are 40 feet and 80 feet in length. The groins will intercept the transport of sand and the pass will thereby be enlarged. The groins will be visible to boaters in shallow water and will not be a significant hazard to navigation. Three Sisters Island is a fifteen acre island to be utilized by Sunset Realty Corp. for residential development. Employees of DER who testified at the hearing were not aware of DER ever permitting filling in Class II waters for the purpose of aiding a private development or use. Other regulatory agencies providing comments on the proposed project after its first revision recommended that all fill be deleted from the project plans and that the bridge be constructed so as to span the entire submerged lands and shoreline wetlands. These agencies included the United States Department of the Interior, the Department of the Army, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. With the exception of Durbin Tabb and Richard Lotspeich, both of whom felt that the destruction of one acre of bottom resources would not be significant to the total system, all other experts in marine biology who testified at the hearing felt that spanning the entire area with a bridge and eliminating the fill would provide a viable alternative to the permanent elimination of wetlands and shorelands. The petitioner Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc. is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation which was incorporated in 1971. The qualification for membership is the ownership of real property on Gasparilla Island. Approximately 700 property owners on Gasparilla Island are eligible to be members of GICIA. The actual membership is approximately 446. Twenty-two members own property on Boca Grande Isles, the subdivision closest to Three Sisters Island. Among the purposes of the GICIA are the promotion of Land, water and wildlife conservation uses and purposes in the Gasparilla Island area in Lee County and Charlotte County, Florida, including the preservation of ecology of the area, the protection of fish and shellfish breeding areas, the preservation of wildlife, and the promotion of anti-pollution measures. Members of the association use the proposed project area for recreational boating, commercial fishing, shellfish gathering, swimming, fishing and enjoyment of the natural flora, fauna and wildlife. Association members will be adversely affected by the destruction of grasslands, mangroves and oyster beds. The Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc. (O.F.F.) is a non-profit corporation with chapters throughout the State of Florida. Its purposes include the protection of the fishing industry of Florida and the promotion and sponsorship of conservation. Some members of O.F.F. regularly fish in the Three Sisters Island area that would be impacted by the proposed project. No evidence was presented at the hearing that the State Board of Directors of O.F.F. officially sanctioned witnesses to appear on behalf of the incorporated Organized Fishermen of Florida. No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the standing or substantial interest of the Florida Division of the Izaak Walton League or Eugene C. Enlow, both listed as Petitioners in the "Amendment of Petition for Formal Hearing." Petitioner Freemen Boynton is the owner of a residence located on Lot No. 98 on Boca Grande Isles. The proposed access bridge and groins are to be constructed on Lots No. 99 and 100 which are contiguous to Mr. Boynton's lot. The groin on Lot No. 99 could cause sand and other debris to accumulate upon Mr. Boynton's riparian property. Petitioner Boynton uses his home on Boca Grande Isles about two and one-half months per year and fishes along the shore, collects oysters, conch and shells and engages in bird watching. He is a member of the Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc., and he feels that the proposed project would remove some of the recreational aspects of his property and Three Sisters Island. Petitioner Ralph Cole is 71 years old and has been a commercial fisherman in the Charlotte Harbor area since the age of 12. He fishes the Three Sisters Island area every week. He feels that the area is an excellent fishing ground and that the proposed bridge would be in the way of striking a net.
Recommendation Based upon the findings and fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Sunset Realty Corporation for a permit be DENIED insofar as it includes the deposition of 10,000 cubic yards of fill in Class II waters. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers and Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles G. Batsel Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell and Batsel 201 W. Marion Drive Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Robert M. Rhodes and Terry E. Lewis Messer, Rhodes, Vickers and Hart Post Office Box 1976 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lester E. Durst Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley and Emrick Post Office Box 635 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether an application by Petitioner, Hancock Bridge Marina, LLC (Petitioner or Hancock), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and sovereign submerged lands lease to expand an existing docking facility on Hancock Creek near the Caloosahatchee River in unincorporated Lee County (County), Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background Hancock is a limited liability corporation with two shareholders: Donald Epler and Stefen Heinke. After conducting a feasibility study, on April 26, 2004, Hancock purchased a 5.51-acre parcel of property in the County with the expectation of constructing and operating a 400-slip marina and a 5,000- square-foot building housing a restaurant, ship's store, and other sundry items needed for operation. (Hancock has subsequently revised its plan by reducing the number of slips requested from 400 to 352.) The cost of the property was around $2.5 million. The property is located in an unincorporated part of the County on the north side of the Caloosahatchee River (River), a Class III water, south of Hancock Bridge Parkway, east of the City of Cape Coral, and west of U.S. Highway 41 and the City of North Fort Myers. The property currently contains a 30-wet slip marina with 13 finger piers and a 4-slip T-dock. The remainder of the parcel is essentially vacant. The parcel borders a River tributary named Hancock Creek, which is a man- altered tidal creek branching off of the River in a northwestern direction, and the North Key Canal, which extends east from Hancock Creek for approximately one-half mile. Access to the River, which is no more than a hundred yards or so south of the parcel, is by traversing North Key Canal and Hancock Creek. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to issue an ERP. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on requests to authorize activities in sovereign submerged lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The Commission is the agency with constitutional regulatory authority over "wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life." See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The Commission's authority for the regulation of manatees is derived from the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, which is codified in Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes. Under Sections 373.428 and 380.23, Florida Statutes, it also has authority to review ERP applications for federal consistency purposes pursuant to the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. On September 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an application for an ERP (a regulatory approval) and a lease to use sovereign submerged lands (a proprietary approval) with the Department's South District Office in Fort Myers, Florida. (For unknown reasons, the application was resubmitted to the Department on August 14, 2006.) The two requests are linked, and the Department cannot approve one without approving the other. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-343.075(2). The application seeks authority to expand in two phases the existing 30-slip facility. The first phase would generally authorize the construction of a 198-slip upland dry storage facility and reconfiguration of the existing docks. In phase 2, Hancock would add 154 dry slips and construct a 5,000-square-foot marina building. Because the docks are constructed on and over sovereign submerged lands, a proprietary authorization is necessary. Before making a decision on the application, the Department forwarded a copy to the Commission for its recommendation. After receiving the Commission's comments, which consist of 89 pages, including transmittal letters, on December 10, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to deny the ERP and proprietary authorization on the grounds the project area is sited in an area of very high level of manatee use and the project will increase local boat traffic, resulting in significant adverse effects on the manatee, which is listed by the state and federal governments as an endangered species. A more detailed description of the reasons for denial is found in the Notice of Intent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6, pages 4 through 9; Department's Exhibit 1.b., pages 4 through 9. The Department acknowledges that its decision was based wholly upon the Commission's determination that the project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on manatees. The DRI and Estoppel In its Petition, Hancock contends that the Department is "estopped to deny a permit for Phase 1 of the marina in light of its acquiescence to the approval of DRI 2-8990-99." By way of background, in 1990, Hancock's predecessor in interest (Waterway Group, Inc.) applied with the County for a DRI which included, among other things, 400 dry boat spaces on the property. DRI 2-8990-99 was approved by the County on July 8, 1991, and has been amended three times. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The original terms of approval contained several conditions that specifically addressed manatee protection. One separated the project into two phases of 200 spaces, the first of which was authorized without additional studies, while the second was subject to additional study and review by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When the DRI was approved, the State's manatee protection program was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. That agency reviewed the DRI and recommended manatee protection conditions. The conditions in the final approval were consistent with the program's recommendation. On June 29, 2004, the County adopted a resolution approving a MPP for the County. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It was not adopted as an ordinance, and individual notice was not provided to interested property owners, including Hancock's principals. After adoption, the County incorporated the MPP into its Comprehensive Plan. The MPP is a planning document that provides a comprehensive review of manatee and boating data on a county-wide basis. It is developed, reviewed, and approved by local, state, and federal governments and is used for guidance when considering appropriate levels of slip densities within a county. The County is one of thirteen counties directed to adopt a MPP. On October 20, 2004, Hancock filed with the County an application to amend its DRI. The application included requests to extend the DRI approval a third time and to revise the site plan. The site plan changes included a reduction in the total number of dry spaces from 400 to 352. On June 20, 2005, the County approved the DRI amendment. The Development Order included a finding of fact that the marina was exempt from the requirements of the MPP because Section 8.4 of the MPP "exempts existing projects with valid permits and Chapter 380 vested status for the construction of slips (wet or dry) that have not been constructed at the time the MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners." See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Third Development Order Amendment for Hancock Bridge Marina, page 4, paragraph H. Hancock then filed the instant application on September 12, 2005. To date, Hancock has expended $1,731,000.00 in its permitting efforts, including the DRI extension and ERP application. There is no evidence that during the DRI process, the Department or Commission made any representations to Hancock about its ability to obtain an ERP or sovereign submerged lands authorization. Also, neither agency was consulted during that period of time, presumably because the DRI and ERP processes are separate and independent of one another. Permitting Criteria Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, contains the standards and criteria governing the approval of an ERP. Subsection (1) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity is "not contrary to the public interest." In determining whether this test is met, paragraph (1)(a) requires that the Department consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. These same factors are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302, an ERP rule adopted by the South Florida Water Management District. This rule has been adopted by reference by the Department to be used when it considers ERP applications within the geographical jurisdiction of that water management district. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.200(4). An additional requirement in the rule is that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(b). Besides the foregoing requirements, additional conditions for the issuance of an ERP are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301, also adopted by reference by the Department. Relevant here are requirements that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed activity (a) will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and (b) will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d) and (f). Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that if an applicant is unable to meet the above criteria, the Department shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity. In this case, mitigation measures have been proposed by Hancock and are discussed below. Finally, Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department evaluate applications for dry storage facilities for ten or more vessels in the same manner as any other ERP application, including that the applicant demonstrate that the facility will not be harmful to the water resources, provides reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and surface waters, and meets the public interest test in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There are no rules or statutes which require that the Department consider the status of, or otherwise take into account, a DRI in evaluating an application for an ERP or proprietary authorization. Impacts on Manatees After reviewing the application for an ERP, the Department determined that the project, as proposed, should be denied because of direct, secondary, and cumulative effects it would have on manatees. The Department further determined that the applicant had not met the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. In making these determinations, the Department considered not only potential deaths of manatees, but also potential impacts such as harassment, disturbance, and sub-lethal boat strikes. The latter strikes may cause permanent injury and can affect reproduction and behavior. The State is a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee. See § 379.2431(2), Fla. Stat. The manatee is a marine mammal that can live as long as sixty years. It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposure to temperatures below around sixty-one degrees, which makes it susceptible to cold-related stress and death. Consequently, the manatees typically seek warm water when temperatures drop below sixty-eight degrees, migrating seasonally over extensive geographic areas. Hancock's marina is located just off the River. The River is one of the most studied and significant habitats for manatees on the west coast of Florida. The County's water bodies, including the River, provide manatees with submerged aquatic vegetation for foraging, fresh water sources, and several warm-water sites to use as refuges during colder weather. Hancock Creek, which is used to access the River from the marina, is an area used by manatees because it provides fresh water and a quiet environment. Manatees also use the River as a major travel corridor between the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) power plant on the Orange River, a tributary of the River located around eight miles upstream from the project site, and the estuaries found downstream where foraging resources are abundant. Hundreds of manatees go up and down the River throughout the year, and those traveling to and from the warm water around the FPL plant must travel past Hancock Creek. Manatee deaths have occurred within a five mile radius of the project site. Also, the number of manatee watercraft- related deaths in the River has steadily increased over the years. According to a 1998 study of boating activity in the County, vessels use the River more as a travel corridor to the bays and estuaries outside of the River than as a destination itself, and that on weekends there is almost constant traffic with vessels leaving or entering the mouth of the River every thirty-five seconds. The majority of the boats leaving the project site are expected to travel downstream through the mouth of the River, an area with substantial vessel congestion. This travel pattern, in conjunction with the typical travel patterns of manatees, indicates that there is a great potential for boat/manatee overlap in the River, increasing the likelihood of impacts to manatees. Besides manatee deaths, there are sub-lethal effects of increased boat traffic in the area. Increased traffic in important manatee areas may create disturbances which will alter behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting, or it may separate mothers from their calves. Also, vessel traffic may cause them to leave preferred habitats. Finally, as noted above, vessel collisions with manatees produce non-lethal injuries as well, causing pain and extreme scarring, which can alter natural behaviors and affect reproduction. The single biggest known cause of death to manatees is impacts from boats. The project would increase the risk of watercraft collisions with manatees in this region. As the level of boat traffic increases, the probability of boat and manatee collisions is also likely to increase. Because the project is located along the travel corridor between the largest wintering aggregation of manatees on Florida's west coast and their local foraging habitat, the expected secondary impacts from increased vessel traffic associated with the project is expected to reduce the value of the functions of the River as a travel corridor. Therefore, the secondary impacts of vessel traffic from the expansion of the marina are expected to result in adverse impacts to manatees. In 1990, the DNR reviewed the proposed DRI for this site under the state manatee program. It found that during the preceding thirteen years (1976-February 1990), thirty-six manatees had died from water-related injuries in the County. Within a five-mile radius of the site, four manatees had died from watercraft-related injuries. DNR concluded that since the manatee protection speed zones for the River had just been established, they were expected to offset the impact of the additional 198 slips. From March 1990 until September 2006, however, twenty-five additional manatees have died from watercraft-related injuries within a five-mile radius of the site. Therefore, the number of deaths had increased without the additional 198 slips. The logical inference is that if the new slips are allowed, boat traffic and the associated adverse impacts on manatees will likewise increase. The fact that dry slips will be used does not change the Department and Commission's evaluation of the project. A boat has the same risk to a manatee whether stored in a wet or dry facility. Marine industry groups suggest that an average usage rate is between ten and fifteen percent at any time, and that usage is likely to increase on the weekends. Thus, as density increases so does the risk. In addition to its own analysis, the Commission reviewed the County MPP, which indicated that nine additional slips at this location would be acceptable, for a total of thirty-nine. This number was calculated by using a slip density of three slips for every one hundred feet of shoreline owned. (The actual linear feet of shoreline owned by Hancock is unclear. The Commission concedes that Hancock "may own a total of 1,214 linear feet of shoreline.") A MPP typically allows for higher boat densities in areas that pose less risk to manatees and lower boat densities in higher risk locations. Had the MPP not been considered, the number of allowable slips would remain at thirty since the MPP provides for a countywide strategy instead of a case-by-case review. To date, the Commission has never recommended approval of a marina application in the County that would authorize more docks than the MPP would authorize. The Commission initially makes an independent assessment of the application without regard to the MPP. In this case, based upon mortality data, aerial surveys, telemetry data, rescue data, and boat studies, the Commission determined that no further slips are appropriate. Therefore, even if the County's MPP is based upon outdated data and analysis, as Hancock contends, approval of the application would not be warranted. Petitioner's expert posited that the proposed project would only result in one manatee death over the next twenty years, which would amount to no more than a de minimus impact on the overall population. Assuming this to be true, manatees are nonetheless an endangered species, and there is no minimal amount of death that is considered acceptable. The witness also opined that Hancock is entitled to an unlimited number of slips under the MPP due to flawed data and analysis underpinning that document. In formulating his recommendations, however, Hancock's expert relied on mathematical models and statistics while ignoring the principles of manatee behavior and biology. Finally, the expert agreed that the greater the number of boats in the water, the greater the likelihood that a manatee could be accidentally crushed. On the issue of impacts to manatees, the testimony of the Commission witnesses is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the marina will be located in an area adjacent to the River, that large numbers of manatees use the River, and that the project is expected to increase boat traffic. This in turn will lead to a higher incidence of boating-related manatee casualties in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity adversely affects the conservation of wildlife and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; it adversely affects the marine productivity in the area; it is permanent in nature; and it diminishes the current condition and relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the activity. On balance, then, the project is contrary to the public interest. Based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f). Similarly, based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b). By failing to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will not be harmful to water resources, that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, and that the project meets the public interest test, Hancock has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes. Mitigation If an applicant cannot meet the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity." As noted in Finding of Fact 27, supra, the Department is willing to approve an additional nine slips that would be allowed under the County MPP, for a total of thirty- nine. According to Hancock, this number is not acceptable because more slips are needed to make the project financially feasible. Although a copy of the application is not a part of this record, the testimony suggests that in its application, Hancock proposed certain measures to mitigate the impacts on manatees. In a letter to the Department dated November 8, 2007, however, the Commission stated that "[i]f the Applicant propose[s] changes to the project to minimize fish and wildlife resource impacts that are consistent with the Lee County MPP, such a project would be consistent with Chapter 370.12(2), F.S." (The Legislature has subsequently consolidated this statute into Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes.) Despite this lack of clarity in the record, sometime during the application process, and presumably before the Notice of Intent was issued, the Commission staff discussed with Hancock whether the following mitigation measures would offset or adequately reduce the impacts: placing a size restriction on boats docking at its facility; providing boater education; installing speed zone marking and making it a requirement for all boats at the marina to be equipped with a speed zone map or a Global Positioning Satellite unit with speed zone mapping; implementing a volunteer watch program to enforce speed limits; making a cash donation to study manatee population dynamics; and installing sonar avoidance technology on vessels. The Commission established that these measures, even if implemented, would not offset the impacts from 198 slips expected with phase 1 of the project. For example, the research associated with sonar technology is not yet completed, and devices are not available for boaters. Also, given the location of the project, even with additional law enforcement and boater education, the impacts would not be offset due to the level of traffic already existing on the River at that site, and the importance of the area to manatees. The middle of the River is a high-speed corridor (with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit) and even with one hundred percent compliance in that zone, a small boat can still hit and kill a manatee. The Proprietary Authorization Because denial of the ERP is being recommended, the proprietary authorization must likewise be denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-373.075(2). Even so, for the purpose of addressing all issues in this Recommended Order, a discussion of the application for proprietary authorization is set forth below. Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 contains the rules that implement the administrative and management responsibilities of the Department in authorizing activities in sovereignty submerged lands. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004 establishes the specific standards and criteria to be applied by the Department in determining whether Hancock should be allowed to use sovereign submerged lands. Paragraph (1)(a) provides that "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest." The public interest is defined as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(43). The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, on balance, the project is contrary to the public interest based upon the standards in the rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides that "[a]ll sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed." The evidence does not show that Hancock's proposed marina expansion constitutes a secondary use not interfering with the propagation of wildlife. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides that "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed," activities which result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved. As previously found, the mitigation measures proposed by Hancock are not adequate. Paragraph (2)(i) of the rule further provides that activities in submerged lands "shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat." Because Hancock failed to prove that the project would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to manatees, it fails to meet this criterion. Paragraphs (7)(d) and (e) of the rule are general conditions for authorization and provide that activities "shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources" and "shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened, or of special concern." Here the more persuasive evidence shows that neither condition has been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an ERP and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands to expand an existing marina on Hancock Creek in Lee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether Save the Manatee Club has standing in this proceeding? Whether the exemptions in paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, (the Exemptions) are "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority" as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes? Whether the Exemptions violate the prohibitions and restrictions on agency rulemaking contained in the last four sentences of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation dedicated to protecting the manatee. Respondent, The Southwest Florida Water Management District, is one of five water management districts in the State of Florida. A public corporation created pursuant to Chapter 61- 691, Laws of Florida, the District's geographic boundaries encompass a number of counties or some part of them including the three counties on the shores of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee. See Section 373.069(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Within this boundary, the District is generally charged with the protection of water resources and with the management and storage of surface waters of the State pursuant to Part IV, Section 373.403 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenor, South Shores Properties Partners, Ltd., is a limited partnership composed of a subsidiary of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and another business organization, Shimberg Cross Company, referred to by its President Glen Cross as "actually SCSS" (Tr. 133), apparently an acronym for Shimberg Cross Company. Mr. Cross' company is the general partner in the South Shores partnership. South Shores was formed in anticipation of closing on a contract entered by Shimberg Cross to purchase a parcel of real estate in Hillsborough County. The closing proceeded in January of 1998. On January 23, 1998, eight days or so before the closing, South Shores was formed as "a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Florida." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 15). It succeeded to the contract rights of Shimberg Cross and then, pursuant to the closing, became the owner of the real estate subject to the contract. South Shores hopes to sell the property to Atlantic Gulf Communities, an organization that will actually develop it. If the arrangement with Atlantic Gulf Communities is not consummated, South Shores will look for another developer or develop the property itself. No matter what party (if any) is the actual developer, South Shores, as the present owner, now seeks the benefit of the Exemptions in support of a District- issued conceptual permit for development of the parcel in Hillsborough County (the Parcel). The Parcel and Its Proposed Development The Parcel is 720 acres in southwestern Hillsborough County. South Shores proposes to use it for a multi-phase, mixed-use project. The development project is denominated "Apollo Beach aka (sic) Bay Side" (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) on the draft of the conceptual permit attached to the District's Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Atlantic Gulf Communities calls it "Harbor Bay". (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). (It will be referred to in this order as Apollo Beach/Bay Side). If all goes as planned by South Shores, the Parcel's developer (whether South Shores, Atlantic Gulf Communities, or some other party) will be able to provide the residential portion of Apollo Beach/Bay Side with direct access by boat to Tampa Bay through an existing canal system on the Parcel. For now access to the bay is blocked by an earthen berm or "plug." With the plug in place, boat access to the bay from the canals can only be achieved by means of a boat lift. A lagoon is also part of South Shores' development plans for Apollo Beach/Bayside. Not yet excavated, the lagoon will allow residents to harbor boats close to their residences. If the lagoon is dug, a boat lift (different from the one necessary to allow boats to cross the plug if left in place) will be constructed to give the boats access to the canal system. With access to the canal system established, once the plug is removed, the boats will have unrestricted access to Tampa Bay. In the "Abstract" section of the conceptual permit proposed for issuance by the District, the project was described as follows: Apollo Beach (a.k.a. Bay Side) is a proposed multi-phase, mixed use development on approximately 720.0 acres in . . . Southwestern Hillsborough County. The project will include single-family and multi- family residential areas and commercial sites. The property is in close proximity to Tampa Bay, West of U.S. Highway 41 and immediately south of the existing Apollo Beach development. The site is presently undeveloped but does contain an existing manmade canal system that is tidally connected to Tampa Bay. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project has an Environmental Resource Permit exemption pursuant to Chapters 40D-4.051(3)(5) and (6), F.A.C. and will only require Standard General Permits for Minor Surface Water Management Systems for the future construction in accordance with Chapter 40D-4.041(4), F.A.C. Because of this exemption, this Conceptual Permit will only review the storm water quality aspects of the project in accordance with 40D-301(2) and will not address storm water quantity issues or impacts to wetland/fish and wildlife habitats. The project will include the realignment of existing Leisley Road and the construction of a roadway system to serve the proposed residential and commercial areas. The project will also include the excavation of a "fresh water Lagoon" approximately 136 acres in size. Most of the proposed single-family residential lots will be constructed on the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. Surface water runoff from the upland portions of the project will be treated in 25 proposed ponds or isolated wetlands prior to discharge to the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13.) The ultimate effects to manatees of the proposed development project, if completed, were described by Ms. Thompson, the Club's witness: A typical project such as this one will introduce a good number of powerboats into the system, in this case, Tampa Bay. And manatees are impacted by powerboats either through propeller injuries or through collision with the hull of a fast-moving boat and the results are either death or in some cases sublethal injuries that may have other consequences such as inability to reproduce, et cetera. . . . [T]he very same boats can affect manatee habitat by prop scarring, boats going over sea grass beds and destroying the grasses. They also, in shallow water, kick up . . . turbidity which can affect light attenuation reaching the sea grass beds. And then there are the water quality issues which have secondary impacts to the sea grass beds . . . (Tr. 96). The Exemptions preliminarily afforded South Shore by the District will allow the removal of the plug in the canal system. Because removal of the plug will facilitate access to Tampa Bay by power boats harbored in the lagoon, it is the issue about the development of the Parcel that most concerns the Club in its efforts to protect manatees in Tampa Bay and elsewhere. Standing of Save the Manatee Club (i). The Manatee The manatee is the "Florida State marine mammal." Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Designated an endangered species under both federal and state law, 50 CFR s. 17.11 and Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code, the manatee is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. In Florida, the manatee enjoys, too, the protection of the Florida Endangered Species Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The State of Florida has been declared to be "a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee." Id. The Club's Purpose and Activities The Club's primary purpose is to protect the manatee and its habitat through public awareness, research support and advocacy. Long active in efforts to protect the manatee, the Club has achieved special status in manatee protection in Florida. In 1996, it was the recipient of a resolution by the Florida Legislature's House of Representative recognizing its endeavors on behalf of the manatee. The Club has been designated a member of the Manatee Technical Advisory Council provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. See sub-sections (2)(p) and (4)(a) of section 370.12(2)(p) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department of Environmental Protection annually solicits recommendations from the Club regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies. In furtherance of its efforts, the Club has frequently participated before the Division of Administrative Hearings in administrative litigation involving manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of itself and its members. (iii). The Club's Membership The Club has approximately 40,000 members. The number of individual persons who are members of the Club, however, is far in excess of this number because many members are groups that receive membership at discounted fees. For example, a family may be one member or, as is quite common, an entire elementary school classroom may be one member. One-quarter of the Club's membership resides in Florida. Approximately 2,200 of the members are on the west coast of Florida with 439 in Hillsborough County, 584 in Pinellas and 165 in Manatee. The total number of members is therefore about 1,188 in the three counties whose shores are washed by Tampa Bay. (iv). Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is "prime essential manatee habitat." (Tr. 65). At least two factors make this so: the Bay's sea grass beds (manatee feeding areas) and warm water sources, particularly in winter, three of which are "power plant effluence." (Tr. 77). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Club has funded long- term research on the manatee in Tampa Bay. It has "provided about ten years of financial support for aerial surveys to count manatees in Tampa Bay and determine their distribution and the health of the sea grass beds . . ." (Tr. 75), a research project which finished last year. This research has contributed to other manatee research in the Bay leading the Club's witness at hearing to conclude, "[t]here's no other place in the state of Florida that has as long a term, as comprehensive a [manatee] database as Tampa Bay." (Tr. 76). Other activities in Tampa Bay conducted by the Club include the placement of manatee awareness signs. And the Club's staff biologist sits on the Tampa Bay Manatee Awareness Coalition established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. In sum, the quality of manatee habitat in Tampa Bay is enough to make it especially important to the Club. But, its importance to the Club takes on added significance because it is the site of one of only three adoption programs the Club sponsors in Florida. The Tampa Bay Adoption Program The Tampa Bay Adopt-a-Manatee Program was established in April of 1999. The six manatees subject to the Tampa Bay Manatee Adoption Program (as of October 7, 1999) have been adopted by 1,229 members, 284 of which have been schools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Those adopting receive a photo of the manatee, a biography, a scar pattern sheet, and a map showing their manatees' favorite habitat areas along the west coast of Florida. Of the six "Tampa Bay Adoption" program manatees, five have been seen in Tampa Bay and one south of Tampa Bay in the Marco Island area. Of the five seen in the bay, four "winter at the warm water discharge area of Tampa Electric Company's power plant" (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Tr. 67) where they can be observed by members of the Club and the Tampa Bay adoption program as well as by the public. The TECO Power Plant The TECO power plant area is the major warm water refuge for manatees known to frequent Tampa Bay, particularly during the winter. The waters near the plant have been observed to be the host of more than 100 manatees at one time, following the movement of cold fronts through the area. The plant has a manatee-viewing center, one of the two principal places in the state for viewing manatees in the wild. The Club's membership handbook gives detailed information about how to see manatees at the TECO viewing center. During the winter months, the Club frequently directs its members to the TECO viewing center. Precisely how many individuals, either as members of the Club through a group membership or as members, themselves, actually have viewed manatees at the TECO viewing center or elsewhere in Tampa Bay was not established. Nor was any competent estimate made of how many might visit the TECO viewing center in the future. The viewing center and the power plant are in the vicinity of Apollo Beach/Bay Side, the development project South Shores seeks to have approved for an Environmental Resource Permit (the ERP). The SWFWMD ERP Program Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs water resources in the state and sets out the powers and duties of the water management districts, including their permitting powers. Part IV of the chapter covers the management and storage of surface waters. According to SWFWMD rules, "'Environmental Resource Permit' means a conceptual, individual, or general permit for a surface water management system issued pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes." Rule 40D-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. The permit issued to South Shores in this case through the application of the challenged Exemptions, is a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit. See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13 and Rule 40D-4.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. The conceptual permit preliminarily issued South Shores is one that was reviewed by the Club's staff, just as it reviews many permit applications for potential effects to manatees. Because of use of the Exemptions as proposed by the District to South Shores, however, any review the Club conducted to assure that the permit met all general permitting criteria was of no use. Much of those criteria were not applied by the District to the application. If the Exemptions were not available to South Shores, the District would have to employ ERP permitting criteria to the surface water management activities associated with the development project, including removal of the plug, lagoon construction, and boat lift installation. The Exemptions, therefore, keep the Club from participating in what otherwise would be the process for the District's administrative decision on the application of those criteria. In sum, the Exemptions preempt the Club's participation in the state mechanism provided by ERP permitting criteria for assessing, inter alia, threats to the manatee and its habitat from harms associated with the proposed development project. The District recognized this effect of the permit in the draft of the permit. The draft states: "Because of this Exemption, this Conceptual Permit will . . . not address . . . impacts to . . . wildlife habitat." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13). The Exemptions, therefore, prevent the Club from carrying out functions useful to protection of manatee habitat, that is, participation in the District's application of wildlife habitat protection criteria. The non-application by the District of permit criteria related to wildlife habitat protection and the Club's inability to assure itself that the criteria are correctly applied poses the danger that manatee habitat will be lost, diminished or damaged. If the Club is ultimately proved right in its assertion that the manatee and its habitat will be damaged by the South Shores development without application of permitting criteria related to wildlife habitat, then the approved application increases the threat that Club members will encounter greater difficulty in observing, studying and enjoying manatees in the wild and in Tampa Bay in particular. Standing of South Shores to Intervene The District has no opposition to South Shores' intervention. As for the Club's position with regard to South Shores intervention, the Club stipulated to South Shores' standing to intervene in a notice filed with its proposed order. South Shores benefits, moreover, from the application of the Exemptions to its proposed project. In light of not having to show compliance with permitting criteria otherwise applicable, South Shores will escape some permitting costs and therefore, enjoys economic benefit. Furthermore, by allowing South Shores to avoid the requirements of compliance with ERP permitting criteria, the Exemptions facilitate fulfillment of the obligation of South Shores to obtain a permit to develop. The District's Rule-making Authority The District governing board has been granted general authority by the Legislature to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972: The governing board of the district is authorized to adopt rules . . . to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has framed this authority in relationship to the District's power to administer the Chapter and its Part IV: In administering the provisions of this chapter the governing board has authority to adopt rules . . . to implement provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. In another provision in Chapter 373, the district has been given rule-making authority that exceeds the authority to implement specific provisions granted typically to most administrative agencies in Florida. This authority is broad indeed. Tied to water use in general, it is bound only by unspecified conditions as warranted: . . . governing boards, . . . may: Adopt rules . . . affecting the use of water, as conditions warrant, . . . Section 373.171, Florida Statutes. The Exemptions; Specific Authority and Laws Implemented The Exemptions are as follows: 40D-4.051 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from [ERP] permitting under this chapter: * * * (3) Any project, work or activity which has received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction and is under construction prior to October 1, 1984. *(4) Any project, work or activity which received a surface water management permit from the District prior to October 1, 1984. * * * Any phased or long term buildout project, including a development of regional impact, planned unit development, development with a master plan or master site plan, or similar project, which has received local or regional approval prior to October 1, 1984, if: The approval process requires a specific site plan and provides for a master drainage plan approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and The Developer has notified the District of its intention to rely upon this exemption prior to April 1, 1985. Projects exempt under this subsection shall continue to be subject to the District's surface water management rules in effect prior to October 1, 1984. As specific authority, the Rule containing the Exemptions references 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. For "Law Implemented", the Rule lists Sections 373.406, 373.413 and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. Section 373.414(9) is cited by the Rule both as specific authority and as one of the laws implemented. The first of the statutory provisions cited by the Rule as a law implemented is Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. It reads: 373.406 Exemptions.- The following exemptions shall apply: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any natural person to capture, discharge, and use water for purposes permitted by law. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to be applicable to construction, operation, or maintenance of any agricultural closed system. However, part II of this chapter shall be applicable as to the taking and discharging of water for filling, replenishing, and maintaining the water level in any such agricultural closed system. This subsection shall not be construed to eliminate the necessity to meet generally accepted engineering practices for construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, dikes, or levees. All rights and restrictions set forth in this section shall be enforced by the governing board or the Department of Environmental Protection or its successor agency, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to establish a basis for a cause of action for private litigants. The department or the governing board may by rule establish general permits for stormwater management systems which have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. The department or the governing board also may establish by rule exemptions or general permits that implement interagency agreements entered into pursuant to s. 373.046, s. 378.202, s. 378.205, or s. 378.402. Any district or the department may exempt from regulation under this part those activities that the district or department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district. The district and the department are authorized to determine, on a case-by- case basis, whether a specific activity comes within this exemption. Requests to qualify for this exemption shall be submitted in writing to the district or department, and such activities shall not be commenced without a written determination from the district or department confirming that the activity qualifies for the exemption. Nothing in this part, or in any rule or order adopted under this part, may be construed to require a permit for mining activities for which an operator receives a life-of-the-mine permit under s. 378.901. Certified aquaculture activities which apply appropriate best management practices adopted pursuant to s. 597.004 are exempt from this part. For the most part, this section sets out general classes of exemptions. And it allows the District to consider whether an activity comes within an exemption on a "case-by-case" basis. See Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. But, none of these "exemptions" appear to have anything to do with the grandfather protections provided by the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. See paragraphs 93-96, below. Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, reads: (1) Except for the exemptions set forth herein, the governing board or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The department or the governing board may delineate areas within the district wherein permits may be required. Other than to make reference in subsection (1)to the existence of exemptions under Part IV of Chapter 373: "Except for the exemptions set forth herein . . .", Section 373.413 does not deal at all with exemptions. Certainly, it does not make reference with any specificity to the subject matter of the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. Cited both as "specific authority" and "law implemented" is paragraph (9) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Unlike Sections 373.406 and 373.413, it has a connection to the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding as is seen from perusal of the underscored language, below: (9) The department and the governing boards, on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provision of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. Such rules shall seek to achieve a statewide, coordinated and consistent permitting approach to activities regulated under this part. Variations in permitting criteria in the rules of individual water management districts or the department shall only be provided to address differing physical or natural characteristics. Such rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(29) and may include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(35). Such rules shall include a provision requiring that a notice of intent to deny or a permit denial based upon this section shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such denial and an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, are necessary to address such reasons for denial. Such rules may establish exemptions and general permits, if such exemptions and general permits do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively . . . (emphasis supplied.) History of the Exemptions The Exemptions have been adopted twice and amended several times. One of the amendments and the second adoption followed omnibus legislation in the environmental permitting arena: the amendment in the wake of the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and the second adoption in the aftermath of the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (i). Amendment after the Henderson Act The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, (the "Henderson Act", later codified as Part VII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) was enacted through Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida. Approved by the Governor on June 1, 1984 and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the same day, (see Laws of Florida, 1984, General Acts, Vol.1, Part One, p. 224) the Act had an effective date of October 1, 1984. The Henderson Act does not amend any provision in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the part of the Water Resources Act which delineates water management district authority over the program for permitting related to the management and storage of surface waters ("MSSW"). Nonetheless, between the adoption of the Henderson Act and its effective date, the District amended and adopted rules in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40 of the Florida Administrative Code because of the Act's passage. Rule 40D-4.011 set out the policy for the amendments and adoptions: (2) The rules in this chapter implement the comprehensive surface water management permit system contemplated in part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As a result of the passage of Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, the Warren G. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, the District has adopted the rules in this Chapter and Chapter 40D-40 to ensure continued protection of the water resources of the District including wetlands and other natural resources. (Exhibit OR 4, See the page containing paragraph (2) of Rule 40D- 4.011 in the exhibit.) /1 Exhibit OR 4, a document officially recognized during this proceeding, is denominated "SWFWMD's Rule Amendment No. 116." The exhibit contains a letter on SWFWMD letterhead, signed by Dianne M. Lee for "J. Edward Curren, Attorney - Regulation" dated September 5, 1984. Under cover of the letter is a rule package filed by the District with the Secretary of State on September 11, 1984. Included in the package is the newly amended Rule 40D-4.051. The amended 40D-4.051 contains subparagraphs (3), (5) and (6), the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. They are worded precisely as they remain worded today. Consistent with the policy expressed in Rule 40D-4.011, Florida Administrative Code as filed in September of 1984, the effective date of the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions was the effective date of the Henderson Act: October 1, 1984. The Exemptions contained in the amendment filed in September of 1984 are "grandfather provisions." The first two are designed to protect certain projects, work or activities from the requirements of the Henderson Act if they had governmental approvals on October 1, 1984. The third is designed to protect from the Act "phased or long term buildout project[s]" that meet certain requirements, among them receipt of governmental approvals by October 1, 1984. At the time of the 1984 amendments, the Rule cited to Sections 373.044, 373.113, 373.149 and 373.171 for "Specific Authority," that is, the statutory source for the district's authority to make rules. For "Law Implemented" the Rule cited to Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. At that time, Section 373.406 contained only four subsections. These four are worded substantially the same as the first four subsections of the section today. Although Section 373.406 was the only law implemented by the Rule in 1984, the section is neither mentioned in nor part of the Henderson Act. The section, itself, does not make mention of the Henderson Act or of protection from it based on government approvals obtained by October 1, 1984. Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in its form both immediately before and after the Henderson Act provided exemptions that appear to have nothing to do with the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. The only connection between Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in 1984 and the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding when amended into the Rule in 1984 appears to be the use of the term "exemptions." The exemptions set out in the Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1984, are not related to grandfather protection from the effects the Henderson Act had on the District's permitting considerations. Following the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions, the Rule was amended further. It was amended on October 1, 1986, March 1, 1988, and January 24, 1990. None of these amendments appear to have affected the Exemptions under consideration in this proceeding. The Rule became the subject of rule promulgation by the District again, however, as a result of a second omnibus act of the Legislature in the environmental permitting arena, the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (ii). The Reorganization Act of 1993 Nine years after the passage of the Henderson Act, the Legislature enacted the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (the "Reorganization Act"). Passed as Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Session Law declares its underlying policy: Declaration of Policy.-- The protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water, and other natural resources of this state are vital to the social and economic well-being and the quality of life of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state. It is the policy of the Legislature: To develop a consistent state policy for the protection and management of the environment and natural resources. To provide efficient governmental services to the public. To protect the functions of entire ecological systems through enhanced co- ordination of public land acquisition, regulatory, and planning programs. To maintain and enhance the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the environmental agencies of the state in the most efficient and effective manner. To streamline governmental services, providing for delivery of such services to the public in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Section 2., Ch. 93-213, Laws of Florida. The Reorganization Act carried out this policy in a number of ways. Among these, it merged the Departments of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources into the Department of Environmental Protection. In so doing and at the same time, it incorporated DER's dredge and fill permitting program instituted by the Henderson Act into the programs of the water management districts for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW). The permitting program that resulted from the consolidation of DER's dredge and fill permitting program with the District's MSSW permitting program is what has been referred to in this order as the Environmental Resource Permitting or ERP program. With regard to rules under the new ERP program, the Reorganization Act amended Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Two sentences in subsection (9) of the amended section bear repeating: The department and the governing boards [of the water management districts], on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provisions of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. * * * Such rules may establish exemptions . . . if such exemptions . . . do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. . . . As discussed earlier in this order, the Henderson Act did not directly create exemptions in the District's MSSW permitting program. Nonetheless, the District through the Exemptions of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, provided "grandfather" protections in the wake of the Act effective October 1, 1984. Whereas grandfather concerns were raised in front of the District after the Henderson Act, grandfather concerns and concerns about other situation that should be entitled to exemptions were raised to the Legislature during the advent of the Reorganization Act. These concerns were addressed in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act, itself. The Act provided specific exemptions that were self- executing. Included were ones providing grandfather protection for certain activities approved under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, (DER's dredge and fill program) from imposition of new ERP permitting criteria expected to be promulgated in the wake of the Reorganization Act. The are contained in subsections (11) through (16) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. None of these exemptions make reference to the Exemptions at issue in this case. Of these provisions, only one addresses activities subject to rules adopted pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373 prior to the anticipated ERP permitting criteria: An application under this part for dredging and filling or other activity, which is submitted and complete prior to the effective date of [the anticipated ERP rules] shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to this part [including the Exemptions in Rule 40D-4.051] and part VIII of chapter 403 in existence prior to the effective date of the [anticipated ERP rules] and shall be acted upon by the agency which received the application, unless the applicant elects to have such activities reviewed under the [anticipated ERP rules]. Chapter 93-213, Section 30, p. 2149 of Laws of Florida, 1993, General Acts, Vol. 1, Part Two, now Section 373.414(14), Florida Statutes. 2/ Rule Activity in 1995 In observance of the mandate in the first section of Section 373.414(9), Florida Statutes, the District undertook adoption of rules "to incorporate the provisions of [Section 373.414] . . . into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters." These rules were the ERP rules anticipated by the Reorganization Act. They included the rules necessary for the District to administer under its ERP program its newfound authority over much of the dredge and fill permitting program formerly administered by DER and now consolidated with its permitting authority in its MSSW rules. Among the rules passed under the authority of the Reorganization Act's Section 373.414(9) is Rule 40D-4.051, the Rule containing the Exemptions subject to this proceeding. Filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 1995, the adoption package for the new readopted states the following, in pertinent part: 40D-4.051 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter [Individual ERPs]: (1) - (7) - No change. (Exhibit OR 6, p. 14). The result of this adoption is that the Exemptions became part of the District's ERP Rules. They now apply to both the MSSW authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to the Reorganization Act, and, in a consolidated fashion, the District's authority conferred by the Reorganization Act to regulate certain dredge and fill activity formerly regulated by DER.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's revocation of Respondent's modified permit, authorizing a cross- fence on Petitioner's fee owned right-of-way, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida, existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multi-purpose water management district. The District's principal office is West Palm Beach, Florida. In executing its multi-purpose, the District, as local sponsor for the US Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, acquired canal rights-of-way. The District's rights-of-way were acquired to enable the Corps of Engineers to construct the flood control project and to maintain the system after its construction. The District operates a proprietary-based right-of-way program to manage the various property interests of the canal rights-of-way. The purpose of the District's right-of-way program is, to the extent possible, to allow uses of the rights- of-way that do not conflict with the flood control project. The rights-of way are used by both public and private concerns, including adjacent property owners, governmental entities, and utility companies. Jesus G. Quevedo is a private individual. His address is 2615 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, Florida. The property at this address was vacant when Mr. Quevedo purchased it, and he has owned the property for approximately ten (10) years. The District has fee simple title to a strip of land on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, immediately west of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge (C-51 Right-of-Way). Mr. Quevedo's property is located at the side of and adjacent to the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is also located within the boundaries of Spillway Park as established in the agreement between the District and the City of Lake Worth. Generally described, Spillway Park includes the District's fee simple owned right-of-way on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, beginning at the west side of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge and continuing to the east side of the Dixie Highway bridge. Mr. Quevedo has no real property interest in the C-51 Right-of-Way. Prior to purchasing his property, Mr. Quevedo was aware that the District owned the C-51 Right-of-Way. Historically, portions of Spillway Park and the C-51 Right-of-Way, in particular, have been a unique and popular location for excellent snook fishing by the public. These areas continue to be considered as such. On February 11, 1993, Mr. Quevedo was issued SFWMD Permit No. 9801 (Permit), a right-of-way occupancy permit, by the District’s Governing Board. The Permit authorized him to make use of the District’s lands and works as follows: 20’ X 50’ BOAT DOCK WITH WALKWAY, BURIED WATER AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, POP-UP SPRINKLERS, AND SODDING WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE OLIVE AVENUE/FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE. During the permit application process, but prior to the issuance of the Permit, Mr. Quevedo had discussed with the District's staff the erection of a cross-fence based on allegations of improper or criminal activities by members of the public. Subsequently, in November 1995, Mr. Quevedo again discussed with the District's staff erection of a cross-fence based on the same allegations but he also included a new allegation of public safety as to the C-51 seawall. Based on the concern for public safety, the District's staff recommended that Mr. Quevedo be granted a modification to the Permit for a cross-fence. On November 14, 1996, the District's Governing Board approved, as part of its consent agenda, and issued SFWMD Permit MOD No. 9801 (MOD Permit)3 authorizing the following: CHAIN LINK CROSS FENCE WITH 16’ VEHICULAR GATE ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED AT 2615 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, provides in pertinent part on its face the following: The permittee, by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . This permit is issued by the District as a license to use or occupy District works or lands. . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risk of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, contained standard limiting conditions, as provided in Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, and special conditions. The limiting conditions provide in pertinent part as follows: Permittee agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this permit, including any representations made on the permit application and related documents. . . . This permit does not create any vested rights, and except for governmental entities and public or private utilities, is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. This permit does not convey any property rights nor any rights or privileges other than those specified herein. . . . Having been granted the MOD Permit, Mr. Quevedo erected the cross-fence within and onto the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is located adjacent to Mr. Quevedo’s property, as indicated earlier, and continues westerly to the permitted cross-fence. The C-51 Right-of-Way is enclosed by the cross-fence, preventing access by the public, and is located easterly of the cross-fence. As the C-51 Right-of-Way is located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park, the cross- fence is also located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park. During the time that Mr. Quevedo has owned his home, including prior to and after erection of the cross-fence, he, his family members and/or guests have frequently fished from the C-51 seawall and used the C-51 Right-of-Way enclosed by the cross- fence. Prior to and after the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members have selectively controlled access by the public to the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall. Prior to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo chased members of the public off the C-51 Right-of-Way. Mr. Quevedo and members of his family also called law enforcement officers to remove members of the public who were located on the C-51 Right-of-Way, even if the members of the public were fishing from the C-51 seawall. After the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members continued to engage in this conduct of selective access. Subsequent to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo had a member of the public arrested for trespassing. The person allegedly jumped over or went around the cross-fence to fish from the C-51 seawall in the C-51 Right-of-Way. With the existence of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo has prevented the general public from using the C-51 Right-of-Way, including the C-51 seawall. As a result, he has acquired the exclusive, private use of the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall, which is publicly owned land, and has, almost doubled the size of his adjacent property without the obligations and expense of acquisition, assuming he could acquire the property through acquisition. The District's policy is that public land should be open to the public. Contrary to this policy, Mr. Quevedo's cross-fence precludes access to the District's right-of-way (C-51 Right-of-Way), including the seawall, for passive recreational use. Similar cross-fencing, although not within the boundaries of Spillway Park, have been erected behind residences on the northeast, northwest, and southeast sides of Federal Highway, along the District’s C-51 Canal bank. The cross-fencing prevents public use of the District’s C-51 Canal bank at these locations. The City of Lake Worth made improvements within the boundaries of Spillway Park; however, it made no improvements, and does not intend to make any improvements in the future, at the C-51 Right-of-Way where Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence is located or at the other private lots west of Mr. Quevedo's property. All of the improvements made at Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence at the C-51 Right-of-Way have been made by him even though the C-51 Right-of- Way is located within Spillway Park. The original public safety rationale for authorizing Mr. Quevedo to erect the cross-fence blocking public access was revisited by the District. Additional investigation by safety experts (Risk Management staff) revealed that no unreasonable danger existed by allowing public access to the C-51 seawall at the C-51 Right-of-Way. In the absence of the public safety basis for closure of the C-51 Right-of-Way, such closure was contrary to District policy. As a consequence, the District’s staff recommended to the District’s Governing Board that the MOD Permit, authorizing Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence, be revoked. After conducting two public meetings and receiving comments from Mr. Quevedo, members of the public, and the District’s staff as to the policy issue of pubic access to the C- 51 Right-of-Way, the District’s Governing Board determined that the C-51 Right-of-Way should be open to the public. Consequently, the Governing Board decided to revoke Mr. Quevedo's MOD Permit. Allegations of criminal activity within the general boundaries of Spillway Park and, specifically, in the C-51 Right- of-Way at the cross-fence area, were made by Mr. Quevedo as a basis to not revoke the MOD Permit and allow the cross-fence to remain. Such allegations have no bearing on the revocation of the MOD Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order revoking SFWMD Permit No. MOD 981 issued to Jesus G. Quevedo. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 8th day of March, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners in this proceeding challenge the validity of one of the Department of Environmental Regulation's ("DER") Class III water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code. This rule, commonly known as the "Biological Integrity Rule," reads as follows: Biological Integrity--the Shannon- Weaver Diversity Index of benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and, in predominantly fresh waters, collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15 meters squared area each, incubated for a period of four weeks; and, in predominantly marine waters, collected and composited from a minimal of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 225 square centimeters. Petitioners challenge this rule as a result of DER's intended denial of an application by Dade County for a permit to renourish the beach at Key Biscayne. DER's decision not to issue the beach renourishment permit was based in part upon its conclusion that there existed an expected violation of the Biological Integrity Rule as a result of the proposed beach renourishment. Whether or not the permit should be granted is an issue currently pending in another DOAH proceeding, Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 80-2201. Petitioners contend that Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because: It fails to accomplish the purpose of the enabling legislation in that it contains no information as to where it is to be applied; It is incapable of consistent and objective application, and thus vests unbridled discretion in the DER staff; It is too vague and indefinite to determine whether it conforms to the statutory limitation on DER's authority; and It purports to but does not measure environmental integrity or environmental quality. The project for which Petitioners have applied for a permit requires the placement of fill on the beach at Key Biscayne in an area which extends landward from a point referred to as the 'design toe of fill." The permit application on file requests permission from DER to place fill material up to the design toe of fill. According to the permit application, it will take approximately two years after the initial placement of sand in the project area for that sand to reach the design toe of fill. There is no information contained in the original permit application regarding the location of the fill as it is initially placed within the project area, nor did DER request any additional information on that subject. The parties have stipulated that 45 acres of sea grass will ultimately be covered by fill. This area represents all the sea grass acreage landward of the design toe of fill, not just the acreage of sea grass which will be covered during the initial placement of fill within the project area. DER has no written policy establishing where the Biological Integrity Rule is to be applied. The record in this proceeding contains differing opinions from members of the DER staff concerning where the rule should be applied in order to determine whether a given project complies with the requirements of the rule. These explanations vary from applying the requirements of the rule within the area to be dredged or filled, to applying the rule outside the fill area, to applying the rule immediately adjacent to the fill area, to determining where the rule should be applied on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing in the record in this proceeding in the form of agency "orders" or any other form of agency "action" to indicate any prior DER interpretation of where the parameters of the Biological Integrity Rule are to be applied and measured. The rule uses the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index of benthic macroinvertebrates as a measure in order to regulate the biological quality of a water body. The regulatory aspect of the rule depends upon some change in the existing biological community. If the index is reduced by more than 25 percent, a violation of the rule has occurred. The index is a function of two factors: the number of species of organisms in a given sample, and the number of individuals of each species in a sample. The higher the number of species in a given sample, and the more even the number of individuals of each species, the higher the index will be. The opposite is also true. If the number of species or the evenness of numbers of individuals among species is reduced, then the index decreases. The two factors are combined to arrive at the index. Naturally, these are only two of a vast number of factors actually present in the environment, but when taken together they give an accurate indication of existing water quality. Although this index does not reveal a number or these factors, such as existing biomass, types of species present in a sample, and the quality of those species, it is the most widely used scientifically valid single measure of environmental quality available. DER has had many years of experience with this index, and uses it in its routine monitoring program. In fact, this index is recommended for use in such programs by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The formula for the Shannon-Weaver index is found in Rule 17-3.021(23), Florida Administrative Code. Although the rule containing the formula for the index was not specifically challenged in the Petition filed in this cause, it bears mentioning here because the formula as published in the Florida Administrative Code, contains so many typographical errors as to make the definition of the formula meaningless. However, the record in this proceeding establishes that the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index is so commonly known, accepted and utilized in the scientific community as to make the proper parameters for its application easily ascertainable. Thus, because the definition of the formula was not specifically challenged in this petition, and additionally because the proper definition of the index is so widely known and easily ascertainable, inaccuracies contained in DER's published definition of the index are harmless insofar as this proceeding is concerned.
Findings Of Fact The proposed addition to the existing commercial docking facilities in the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve would consist of approximately 5,000 square feet of additional overwater structure. The effects of such a facility on the marine ecosystem were described in expert testimony. The structure would cut off penetration of light to the bottom and the organisms living below. The resultant change in the biota under the dock would reduce the number of sedentary species, that is to say those species that remain essentially stationary in a given area, and would increase the number of errant species, that is to say those species which move from place to place. This change in the existing ecosystem directly affects the food chain and ultimately adversely affects commercial and sports fishing. Other negative impacts on the area due to the proposed construction would be increased boat traffic, sewage, introduction of petroleum products into the waters and an increase in the number and size of boats docking in the area thereby expanding the shaded area beyond that of the dock itself. Though the actual amount of damage to the preserve from both the shading effect and usage as a whole cannot be quantified without appropriate natural asset inventroy and study, some amount of damage would occur to the biological integrity of the area. The proliferation of docks within the Aquatic Preserve along with the cumulative impact of such construction must be considered as a potential threat to the Preserve. The cumulative impact and extent of damage which might occur as a result of the proposed construction must be determined through the conduct of a study developing a management plan for the Preserve, balancing present and future needs and values. Each individual Petitioner owns waterfront property within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. Because of the potential negative impact of the proposed project and its cumulative impact with other projects on waterfront property, each Petitioner would be materially affected by the granting of this lease. No use or management criteria, ultimate or incipient, for the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve have been adopted. However, since December, 1975, DNR has been engaged in the process of adopting such rules for the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Once adopted, these rules will serve as a model for rules to be promulgated for the other aquatic preserves including Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. No studies have been conducted by DNR of Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. There is no inventory of available commercial docks, boat traffic, ingress or egress within the Preserve. The proposed rules for the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve are not presently being applied to aquatic preserve leases.
Findings Of Fact Permitting History This development was originally known as North Largo Yacht Club and was owned and developed originally by the Largo Brand Corporation. That developer and this development received Development of Regional Impact approval from the county commission of Monroe County in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes in 1974. In 1975 that developer received various permits and water quality certifications authorizing construction of the "Atlantic Marina" (the existing marina) from both the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The marina was ultimately constructed and no further governmental approvals are required for the present Respondents to make full use of the existing marina which has an authorized boat capacity of 363 boat slips, which are situated around long piers extending from the shore of the marina basin out into the marina basin. Sometime after construction of the marina, the mortgagee, through foreclosure, obtained title to the property from Largo Brand Corporation which has since dissolved, ultimately conveying it to City National Bank as trustee under a Florida land trust. City National Bank filed the present application in its original form but in February, 1984, conveyed the property to Port Bougainville, Inc. and Port Bougainville Enterprises, Inc., the present Applicant/Respondent who succeeded City National Bank as the real parties in interest prosecuting the present permit application, as modified. The permit application as it presently exists is the result of various modifications suggested by the Department of Environmental Regulation and agreed to by the present Applicant/Respondents, which had the effect of causing the Department to change its position from one of denial of the permit to one of approval, by issuance of a Notice of Intent to grant the permit in June of 1984. The Applicant/Respondent's original decision to apply for the new permit was based upon aesthetic considerations and a desire to redesign and change the theme of the development and the marina itself. It is thus proposed that the boat-mooring facilities be moved to the periphery of the basin and the piers or docks extending out into the basin be removed. This would create an open body of water in the basin, more in keeping with the "Mediterranean Village Harbor" theme of the entire development. The original application filed in early 1984, called for realignment of the docks rather than removal, and the creation of various baylets or inlets along the access canal and contained no proposal for shoaling the existing boat basin. The Department used this original proposal as a basis for its Intent to Deny the Permit Application since it considered those modifications unacceptable in terms of the likelihood that it might degrade water quality or at least not improve the ambient water quality then existing in the marina basin and entrance canal. The Respondents acceded to the demands of the Department, employed additional consultants and redesigned the project, including the creation of a sophisticated hydrographic model by which, and through which, the Respondents ultimately proposed (with the Department's agreement) to revise the application as follows: Shoal the entire basin and canal system to no more than -6 Ft. mean low water; widen and sculpt the access canal on the west side and install solid flow baffles on the east side so as to create a sinusoidal or curving configuration in the canal to improve mixing of the water in the canal and basin system; remove the existing docks and construct new docks around the periphery of the basin so as to provide a decreased number of boat slips and capacity for a total of 311 boats; install one bubble screen surrounding the fueling facilities to contain oil and fuel spills and another at the entrance of the access canal where it opens into the Garden Cove Channel so as to prevent organic materials from outside the canal and basin system from being carried into it with tidal currents and wind; installation of "batter boards" along the length of the waterward or easterly and southeasterly side of the access canal so as to protect the mangroves along that side of the canal from the effects of wake energy caused by boats. After further "free-form" review, investigation and negotiation, the Department required, and the Respondents agreed to make the following additional modifications to the marina development plan: Shoal the north end of the basin to -4 ft. mean low water; slightly reconfigure the access canal and install an additional wave baffle on the eastern periphery of the canal in order to improve circulation in the western portion of the boat basin; relocate the proposed fueling facilities more toward the rearward center of the basin in order to further isolate them from the outstanding Florida waters lying at the outward, "seaward" end of the project; provide funds necessary to more adequately mark the Garden Cove Channel in accordance with the requirements specified by the Department of Natural Resources so as to further ensure that boat traffic and possible propeller damage could be prevented to the marine grassbeds and other marine life on either side of the Garden Cove Channel; install tidal level gauges at the mouth of the Garden Cove Channel which would show boaters wishing to use the channel and access canal the current, minimum depths prevalent in the channel and canal; grant to the Department a "conservation easement" binding upon the Respondent which would provide the following: That no hydraulic connection be made from any of the upland lakes on the Respondent's property to the marina, to the canal, to the channel or any other state waters; an agreement not to employ boat lifts that would require a dredge and fill permit from the Department; an agreement not to apply for additional permits so as to increase the number of boat slips in the marina beyond the 311 presently proposed; to develop a reef management plan in conjunction with the Florida Audubon Society to include educational programs for the public as well as underwriting the installation of mooring buoys and adequate channel markers in the John Pennekamp Reef Park, the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) involved in this proceeding. During the time of construction of the proposed marina modifications, the entire marina will be closed and isolated from the waters of Garden Cove by the installation of a dam at the entrance to the marina access canal where it opens into Garden Cove. The dam will remain in place until turbidity resulting from the dredging, filling and construction has settled and the waters in the marina have achieved the turbidity standards required by the Department and its rules contained in Chapter 17 3, Florida Administrative Code. All the proposed modification work will be performed landward of the surveyed mean high water line. Additionally, a storm drainage system will be installed which will prevent any stormwater runoff from being deposited into the marina harbor. The stormwater runoff will be routed away from the harbor through the use of a reverse gradient around the periphery of the harbor and runoff from the adjacent real estate development will be thus routed away from the harbor into grass swales to be collected into holding areas for filtration. Ambient Water Quality in the Marina and Garden Cove Respondents tendered Dr. Earl Rich, a professor of Biology at the University of Miami as an expert in ecology and he was accepted without objection. Since 1974 he has conducted extensive studies with attendant sampling, observation and water quality monitoring in the Port Bougainville Marina. Beginning in 1983 he also performed certain chemical analyses on the water samples from the marina. Photographs taken underwater in the marina basin were adduced and placed in evidence, as were the results of the observations and tests. It was thus established that there is a dense growth of macroalgae in the marina at a depth of about six feet, although at the nine-foot level there is much less such growth. Concomitantly, the deeper holes in the marina basin exhibit a low dissolved oxygen reading and are largely responsible for the frequently occurring, low dissolved oxygen reading in the marina system that is lower than acceptable standards embodied in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Garden Cove itself is a shallow embayment open toward the Atlantic Ocean in a generally easterly direction, characterized by a rocky or coarse sediment bottom substrate. It is characteristic of this area that organic materials such as seaweeds and the like, are transported by currents and winds into Garden Cove from other marine areas. The underwater vegetation in Garden Cove is lush. There are extensive shallow-water marine grass beds. These vegetated areas support a large population of marine animals and fish. Dissolved oxygen is, of course, essential to the metabolism of these organisms. The two primary means for oxygen to enter the water are as a result of photosynthetic activity of marine plants and through oxygen entering the surface waters through waves and wind action, with that surface water being distributed and mixed so as to disburse the action throughout the water column. The term biochemical oxygen demand or BOD, refers to the rate at which organisms use oxygen in the water. If there are many active photosynthetic organisms, as in Garden Cove, the production of oxygen during the day, as for instance by the seagrasses in the cove, exceeds the BOD of the plant and animal community in the water body, in which case the plants contribute excess oxygen to the air. During hours of darkness, plant and animal communities in the water body will continue to consume oxygen although there will be no photosynthesis to contribute oxygen. Therefore, in an underwater community rich in plant and animal life, such as Garden Cove, the dissolved oxygen level is typically higher during the daylight hours and BOD readings will be decreased during the night, reaching a low level during the early morning hours. Frequently, dissolved oxygen readings in Garden Cove are below state standards for waters of the State under natural conditions. These low DO readings occur commonly in Garden Cove during conditions of calm wind. Indeed, Dr. Rich has measured dissolved oxygen in Garden Cove below the four-part per million state standard even before the present marina and canal were ever constructed. Since the opening of the marina there have been times when the DO readings in Garden Cove have been lower than those inside the marina itself. Hydrodynamics of the Modified Marina The proposal by the permit applicant calls for widening the access channel into the marina to approximately 130 feet by excavating upland on the western bank of the canal. The access canal will then be reconfigured during the excavation into a winding or curving fashion. That adjustment, along with the solid flow baffles to be installed on the eastern bank of the canal, will set up a winding or sinusoidal flow of tidal currents. The sinusoidal flow will induce secondary helical currents that will move water repeatedly from the top to the bottom of the canal and then back, thereby significantly improving the mixing action. The improved mixing of the waters in the canal and marina will serve two purposes: It will disperse any pollutants so as to reduce pollutant concentrations. It will disperse the oxygen introduced into the surface waters by wave and wind throughout the water column. Dr. Bent Christensen is Chairman of the University of Florida Hydraulics Lab. Using knowledge gained in hydrographic modeling as a result of work he performed in carrying out a "Sea Grant study" under the auspices of the University of Florida, Dr. Christensen designed a computer model of the proposed Port Bougainville marina and access canal by which, in turn, he designed the winding access canal which will emulate nature in producing a turnover of water induced by current velocities and canal configuration, rather than by temperature differences in water. The computer model takes into account tidal flows and wind-induced velocities which are important to mixing of water within the system. Using this model, Dr. Christensen was able to redesign the marina canal so as to improve water quality within that system as well as improving the quality of water leaving the system into Garden Cove. Drs. Lee and Van de Kreeke are ocean engineers who testified as expert witnesses on behalf of Petitioners. They sought to dispute Dr. Christensen's conclusion that the redesign would improve DO levels within the marina based upon their independent determination that a different design would increase flushing times for the system. Flushing, however, is a simplistic way of analyzing water quality. Flushing analysis assumes that the only means to improve water quality is to replace water within the system with water from outside the system. The Christensen model and the resulting proposed design of the marina and canal, on the other hand, improves water quality through internal mixing action. The proposed design actually reduces flushing time, but more importantly, maximizes dispersion of water within the system and along with it, dissolved oxygen. The design introduces dissolved oxygen throughout the water column in the system through internal mixing because of the sinusoidal configuration of the canal and the helical currents the canal configuration sets up. The concentration of pollutants measured by the State Water Quality Standards are, in turn, reduced through the same hydrodynamics. Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that a key ingredient in his model was the assumption he had regarding BOD in the system, but he had no idea what the BOD extant in the Port Bougainville system might be. He also admitted that his calculations did not take into consideration the factor of wind mixing of the waters in the system and acknowledged that wind can and does play an important role in flushing and mixing the waters in marinas. Finally, Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that he could not fully analyze Dr. Christensen's assumptions in arriving at his model and design because he did not have the information Dr. Christensen relied upon. Thus, Dr. Christensen's model and design is accepted as more credible than that of Drs. Van de Kreeke and Lee. That model and design establishes that the quality of water exiting the marina into the Outstanding Florida Waters in Garden Cove will be improved by the modifications proposed to be constructed in the marina. Impact on Benthic Communities The northerly end of the marina basin will be sloped from -6 feet to - 4 feet. This widening and shallowing of the marina basin and access channel will have the affect of promoting the growth, regrowth and welfare of the benthic communities in the waters in the marina and access canal by providing greater light penetration to the bottom of the marina. The widening will have the effect of causing a greater portion of the marina bottom to be lighted during the day since at the present time, the bank and surrounding trees shade the marina basin for substantial portions of the day. The increased light penetration will result in more photosynthetic activity by the plant life in the marina and canal such that increased amounts of oxygen will be produced enhancing the dissolved oxygen levels of the marina waters. In that connection, the Respondents' expert, Dr. Rich, has examined a number of marinas and observed very healthy benthic communities in marina harbors more densely populated with boats than will be the proposed marina. Another significant improvement in the ecological status of the present marina will be the placing of a bubble screen device across the mouth of the entrance canal. This will have the effect of preventing floating organic materials such as sargassum, from entering the marina. Marinas typically experience problems related to dissolved oxygen levels in their waters because of an accumulation of floating organic material which tends to settle to the bottom creating excessive biochemical oxygen demand in their decomposition process, thus resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels. Thus, the bubble screen will aide in decreasing BOD. Likewise, a bubble screen device is proposed to be placed around the fueling facilities in the rearward portion of the marina basin so as to prevent the spread of pollutants such as spilled oils, greases and fuels, which may occur during routine fueling operations from time to time. Inasmuch as the modifications have been shown to cause some improvement in the dissolved oxygen level in the waters of the marina basin and access canal, it has been demonstrated that the modifications will not interfere with the conservation of marine wildlife and other natural resources. The bodies of water consisting of the marina, the access canal and Garden Cove, at the present time support a diverse marine community that can be expected to continue to flourish. Neither will the proposed activity destroy any oyster or clam beds, as none have been shown to exist in these waters. Dr. Rich has monitored waterways and offshore waters at a nearby, comparable marina, The Ocean Reef Club, for approximately ten years. He has discerned no noticeable impact on the benthic communities within that marina from a very heavy boat traffic during that period of time. The boats using The Ocean Reef Club Marina are typically larger than will use the Port Bougainville facility and boats of over 100 feet in length commonly use The Ocean Reef Club. In terms of impact on offshore benthic communities, he has observed no visible impact by the heavy amount of boat traffic using The Ocean Reef Marina from the standpoint of comparison of the experience with that marina, in terms of biological impacts, with the marina configuration proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. In short, the proposed marina configuration as contrasted to the existing permitted marina, represents an improvement because of the increased surface area providing increased oxygen exchange through wave and wind action, the shoaling which will also be beneficial to dissolved oxygen levels because of its enhancement of photosynthetic processes, and because of the proposed marina management steps designed to prevent floating organic material from entering the marina. Thus, the modified design was shown to provide a meaningful improvement in general ecological conditions within the marina and hence, in the offshore waters of Garden Cove with which the marina waters exchange and mix. Water Quality Dr. Eugene Corcoran is Professor Emeritus of the Rosensteel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. He is a marine chemist and performed a chemical analyses of the samples taken for the water quality report presented by Respondents and in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 17. Dr. Corcoran also performed the analyses for the ongoing water sampling program conducted by Dr. Renate Skinner, an expert witness for Petitioners. The Petitioners accepted Dr. Corcoran as an expert witness without objection. The proposed marina modifications involved in this permitting application were thus shown to cause no violations of the state standards for dissolved oxygen. The Rio Palenque Water Quality Study in evidence indeed documented a number of instances where dissolved oxygen fell below the state minimum standards of four parts per million in the present marina. Once the modifications are completed there still may be instances when dissolved oxygen falls below that standard, but this can be attributed to natural phenomenon and the same relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen below state standards have been observed in the offshore waters of Garden Cove itself, which is an Outstanding Florida Water. Significantly, however, it was established that concentrations of dissolved oxygen will likely increase as a result of these modifications, the inducement of the helical flow and consequent vertical mixing, the widening of the entrance canal and the shoaling of the bottoms in the marina basin and canal, as well as the measures to be taken to reduce the deposition of organic materials in the marina basin and canal. The only water quality criteria placed in contention by the Petitioners and Intervenors were dissolved oxygen and copper. Although a number of Petitioners' witnesses were qualified to address the impacts of water quality on different marine organisms, only Dr. Curry was qualified as an expert in water quality. Dr. Curry's chief concern was with dissolved oxygen, which is based on the Rio Palenque Study showing present low values for dissolved oxygen in the marina as it now exists. Dr. Curry did not establish that the proposed modifications to the marina would themselves cause dissolved oxygen violations and although he testified in great detail concerning his attempt to compute the amount of copper that might be given off by the bottom paint of boats in the modified marina, he was unable to render an opinion that the modifications would increase copper levels in the waters in the marina. He acknowledged that his calculations were based on the assumption that all the boats in the marina would be using copper anti-fouling paints and his calculations took into account an assumption that all boats in the marina would have been painted within the last six months as a base datum for his calculations. Additionally, he did not take into account dispersion ratio associated with the hydrodynamic forces present in the modified marina. Dr. Curry admitted that he had never studied copper levels in a marina environment and was unable to explain the chemical effects on water quality of copper anti-fouling paints on boats. In all his sampling, he only found one instance of a violation of the Chapter 17-3 copper standard and that occurred within only a few millimeters of the hull of a newly-painted boat. Other fallacies involved in Dr. Curry's analysis, concern the interaction of seawater with copper bottom paint. Since seawater has a high level of carbonates, copper is immediately complexed with organic compounds such as amino acids. These organic complexes are soluble in seawater and indeed, serve as important nutrients to phytoplankton and other beneficial marine organisms. Thus, that portion of the total complex copper precipitated from the water as well as that portion taken up as nutrients would not be included in any concentrations of copper measured in the water column. Additionally, Dr. Curry's computations did not take into account the dispersion of copper concentrations due to mixing or flushing, which has a direct beneficial effect on reducing concentration of copper and other pollutants in the water column. Thus, Dr. Curry's computations are deemed immaterial, inasmuch as he effectively admits that the modifications to the marina would not be detrimental to water quality. The proposed modifications will not lower ambient water quality or significantly degrade the waters in the adjacent John Pennekamp Park, Outstanding Florida Waters. Since it has been established that the marina modifications will likely improve water quality within the marina, logically, the water quality in the park to some degree might be slightly improved, since those waters exchange with the waters in the marina. There will be no increase in concentrations of any pollutants emanating from the Port Bougainville Marina as a result of the proposed modifications. Improved Marking of Garden Cove Channel The Applicant/Respondents are required to provide improved navigational markers in the Garden Cove Channel, pursuant to an amended development order. Additionally, they have agreed to provide additional channel markers delineating the channel from the entrance of the existing marina to the Garden Cove Channel proper. With regard to the Garden Cove Channel, the Respondents proposed to move certain existing channel markers to more clearly identify that channel, which would make certain portions narrower and thereby eliminate boat passage over some shallow areas populated with marine grasses which presently lie within the marked channel. The Respondents also propose to add two more sets of channel markers at the seaward end of Garden Cove Channel, so that boats exiting the channel heading for the open sea will avoid certain shallow marine grass areas. The reason for this is to avoid possible damage to valuable marine grass beds and habitat which might be caused by prop wash of boats crossing over them, as well as actual contact and scouring by propellers or potential grounding of boats navigating these areas. Witness Balfe for the Respondents has personally sounded the entire length of the access canal and Garden Cove Channel. His soundings are admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 19 and are unrefuted. It was established therefore, that the bottom configuration of that access channel is basically flat or level with only minor irregularities of less than a foot. There are no rock outcroppings or other obstructions which would reduce the controlling depth below -4 feet. Approximately 12 times per year however, during "spring tides", the ambient water depths in Garden Cove could be expected to go below -4 feet mean low water. During these times the tide will be approximately 6 to 8 inches below that normal depth. Perhaps 25 times per year the tide is 5 or 6 inches below that mean low depth. The tide gauge which will be installed will alleviate possible propeller scouring or grounding damage to grass beds and marine habitat, especially during those abnormally low tides, by providing boat operators a current, up-to-date reading on the depths in the channel. Contributions to Park Management Plan and Marina Management Plan The Applicant/Respondents have agreed to a permit condition requiring a financial commitment to assist in the management of the John Pennekamp Park so as to minimize the adverse impacts of human use of the park. This commitment includes the provision of $75,000 to finance a study and preparation of a management plan for the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, which would include study of the feasibility of inaugurating an entry permit system for the park, a testing and certification program for commercial dive boat operators, possible zoning of the park to allow recovery of the park coral reefs and other resources from the impacts of human visitors, locating central mooring buoys so that visitors' boats could be moored in one restricted area to avoid damage to the delicate coral reefs, and more adequately marking the boundaries of the park. Additionally, the Respondents propose to provide $50,000 for the acquisition of anchor buoys to be placed in selected areas of the park and to provide funds to finance a survey to more adequately identify the boundaries of the park. In order to more adequately protect water quality in the marina itself, the Respondents will inaugurate a marina management program which will include the installation of a sewage pump-out station and a pump-out station for motor oils and lubricants for boats. In addition to the two bubble curtains mentioned above, the Respondents will install containment booms and absorption mats and will permanently maintain a boat equipped with absorption mats and suction equipment for fuel or oil spill removal. The marina will prohibit persons living aboard boats, to prevent attendant sewage effluent problems, and will prohibit maintenance of boats, including painting and oil changes, while boats are in the water. This program will be monitored by an environmental protection officer employed by the condominium association under the auspices of the Respondents. Many of these marina management provisions are already requirements of the Port Bougainville 1982 development order referenced above. Management of Inland Lakes Although the use and management of the inland lakes on the Respondents' property is not directly involved in this permit application proceeding, the Respondents' overall development plan encompassed by the development order anticipates that at a future time a boat lift will be installed on upland so as to allow boats to be transferred from the inland lakes into the marina for access to marine waters. The lakes themselves, however, will not be open to the marina or to outside waters. The inland lakes are anticipated to provide dockage for approximately 200 boats, with restrictions against boats exceeding 20 feet in length and boats powered by combustion engines. The Respondents expect that the inland lakes will be primarily used by small boats such as canoes or sailboats. Dry storage for boats will be maintained on an upland site, for which a DER permit is not required. Neither is a permit for a boat transfer facility required since it would not involve dredging, filling or construction over water. The use of a boat lift, although it itself is not an issue before the Hearing Officer in this proceeding, would involve the potential of 200 or more boats using the marina in addition to those for which the marina is designed. This could occasion substantially greater risk for oil, grease and fuel spills and other potential damage to the water quality within the marina and damage to the marine habitat, grass beds and so forth within the marina, the access canal and the adjacent areas in Garden Cove. Accordingly, the conservation easement which the Respondents have agreed to provide the department as a condition to the grant of this permit should be amended to add a further condition on a grant of this permit so as to preclude placement of boats from the inland lakes into this marina or its access canal. Such a restriction would comport with the proposed uses of the inland lakes established by Mr. Scharenberg, the Respondent's principal. Boating Impacts Boat traffic in the Garden Cove Channel area is significant, with heaviest traffic occurring on the weekends when approximately two to three hundred boats navigate that channel. The boats presently using Garden Cove Channel come from a number of nearby marinas, small fishing docks and dry storage areas, as well as from a marked navigational channel called North Creek that provides access to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic Ocean from Largo Sound. A small canal cuts through Key Largo into Largo Sound and provides access for boats in the Black Water Sound and other areas on the west side of Key Largo to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic. The Port Bougainville Marina is expected to attract a mix of boats typical for such a marina, with the majority consisting of boats ranging from 27 to 35 feet in length. Approximately 20 percent of the boats will likely be in the 40-foot range. Larger boats may also use the marina, particularly those with a shallow draft, and "shoal draft" sailboats of 35 to 40 feet can safely navigate in and out of the marina. The marina, as it would be modified, would permit use of boats with a draft of up to three and one-half feet, although deeper draft boats could use the marina by timing arrivals and departures for the high tide, which is a common mode of operation by boat operators in the Florida Keys and other marine areas. The Port Bougainville Marina will contribute approximately 30 to 50 boats to the Garden Cove boat traffic on an average weekend out of the possible 311 boats in the harbor as it is proposed to be constructed. There will be a lesser number of boat arrivals and departures during the weekdays. The primary users of boats in and out of the marina will be people who own condominiums in the attendant real estate development. Temporary visitors, not owning boats moored in the marina, would typically use the dive charter boats and other rental boats in the surrounding areas, such as at the Ocean Reef facility. The existing marina which is already permitted and can be fully used at the present time from a legal standpoint, could accommodate the same reduced number and sizes of boats as the proposed modified marina by simply removing some of the present docks and finger piers. The Respondents propose to maintain approximately 20 slips for boats which are not owned by condominium unit owners, and they anticipate operating six to seven deep-sea charter boats as well as five smaller skiff-type charter boats, and perhaps as many as two dive charter boats with additional demands for charters to be serviced by charter boats in the surrounding areas. Boating adverse impacts on the marine benthic communities inside and outside of the marina will be minimized by the construction configuration of the marina and boat slips, the shoaling and widening of the marina basin and canal, and the channel marking and tidal gauging provisions proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. These safety arrangements would be further enhanced by the above-mentioned restriction on the placing of boats into the waters of the marina and canal from the inland lakes. The configuration of the proposed modified marina and the shoaling will have a beneficial effect in rendering use by extremely large boats, which might cause propeller, wake or grounding damage to the marine benthic communities unlikely because of the inaccessibility caused by the intentional shoaling. Coral Reef Impacts Dr. Peter Glynn is a qualified expert in marine ecology and was accepted as an expert witness in that area with particular emphasis, through his long specialization, in the ecology of corals and coral reefs. He has researched the effects of sediments, herbicides, pesticides, oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, tidal effects and oil pollution on corals. He testified as a rebuttal witness addressing concerns raised by Petitioners' and Intervenor's witnesses with regard to boat traffic, attendant turbidity and possible synergistic effects on coral reefs caused by oils, greases, low oxygen levels and turbidity. Dr. Glynn has studied corals in many areas of the world including the Caribbean and the Florida Keys. The coral reefs in Florida are similar to those in the Caribbean area and belong to the same "biogeographic province." He has dived in and examined the Garden Cove area and found four species of small reef building corals in Garden Cove. These were found in the vicinity of a shipwreck near the channel entrance to Garden Cove and the remainder of the corals observed in Garden Cove were in the bottom of the boat channel running through Garden Cove. There were no corals observed on the grass flats and in shallower areas of Garden Cove. The corals occurring in the boat channel are in isolated colonies of less than a foot in diameter. The Petitioners and Intervenors attempted to raise the possibility of synergistic adverse effects on corals posed by combinations of oils, oxygen levels, temperatures and sedimentation or similar impacts. It was not shown how or at what concentration turbidity might combine with various oxygen levels, temperatures or degrees of light penetration to produce such effects, however. The only type of synergistic effects on corals Drs. Glynn and Corcoran have observed is that between oils and pesticides. Although this effect has been demonstrated in another study area far removed from the Florida Keys, no such pesticide and oil synergistic impact has been observed in the Florida Keys area, chiefly because it is not an agricultural area characterized by significant use of pesticides. Likewise it was not established that suspended sediments in the Garden Cove area could have an adverse effect on corals by reducing light penetration. In tropical areas such as the Keys, light penetration is often saturating or in greater quantities than are really needed for healthy coral growth and indeed, many corals in these areas have pigments that naturally shield them from excess light because these coral species actually can suffer from too much light penetration. Additionally, Dr. Glynn has observed good coral reef health and growth in areas that are highly turbid. It was not established that an increase of sedimentation deposit on corals will necessarily have an adverse impact, particularly because most corals can accept a substantial amount of fine-grain sediment deposition without adverse effect. The manner in which the proposed marina modifications will be accomplished will minimize sedimentation at any rate since the canal will be dammed off from Garden Cove until all work is completed and all sedimentation within the marina and marina access canal has subsided to levels compatible with the state standards for turbidity. In any event, there is no evidence that boat traffic in Garden Cove at the present time influences the distribution and health of live coral, particularly since the main coral abundance in Garden Cove occurs in the heavily-used boat channel at the present time. Likewise, Dr. Glynn established that sediments from any increase in boat traffic in Garden Cove will not likely drift out on the offshore reef tract and be deposited on the reefs to their detriment in any event, since the fine sediments occurring in Hawk Channel and in Garden Cove, are largely precluded from deposition on the offshore reefs because the waters over the reef tract offshore have very different physical characteristics. That is, there is distinct interface between the inshore and oceanic waters caused by the strong wave assault and current action near the reefs, which precludes the fine sediments from the inshore areas remaining in the area of the reefs. Finally, any increase in the number of people visiting the Pennekamp Park attributable to use of the modified marina will not inevitably lead to degradation of the reefs. By way of comparison, studies of Kaneoi Bay in Hawaii where a major pollutant source from human sewage caused degradation of the coral reefs, showed that when sewage effluent was subsequently directed away from the reefs, the reefs rejuvenated and repopulated and are now used extensively for recreational activities without observable biological degradation. These studies are consistent with studies Dr. Glynn referenced with regard to Biscayne Bay National Park, which have shown no significant degradation occasioned by human visitation of the reefs in that park. Those studies have not shown a significant difference between the health of the "controlled reefs" and the reefs which are allowed to be used for recreational purposes. It was thus not established that there will be any degradation of the corals in the near-shore areas of Garden Cove nor in the offshore reef areas occasioned by any increased boat traffic resulting from the modification of the marina. Indeed, it was not demonstrated that the mere modification of the marina, which will actually accommodate fewer boats than are presently permitted, will cause any increase in present boat traffic at all. Dr. Glynn, in the course of his teaching and studies in the field of marine ecology has become familiar with the causes and effects of Ciguatera toxin in marine environments. He recently participated in the study of possible Ciguatera toxin at the grounding site of the freighter Wildwood on Molasses Reef, some miles distant from the marina site. All cases reported of such harmful concentrations of this toxin have originated from open water, outer coral reef environments, and not from near shore areas such as those involved in this case, where seagrasses and mangroves are the dominant marine communities. Ciguatera toxin organisms require clear open ocean water with strong currents and well-developed coral reefs which are found offshore in the Keys and not in the near-shore mangrove-type environments. The cause of Ciguatera is a concentration of toxin in the food chain. Although the bacteria that cause Ciguatera Toxin in fish, and resulting harmful effects in humans, occur everywhere in marine waters, the bacteria are not a hazard because generally, conditions are not appropriate for the bacteria to multiply. The two main species of dinoflagellates, that have been associated with causing Ciguatera poisoning do not occur in an environment such as the Port Bougainville Marina. They are typically concentrated in larger fish such as snapper, grouper and barracudas which cause problems when they are eaten by people. These species are not generally found in the inshore mangrove and grassbed areas such as are involved in the case at bar. Thus, the concerns expressed by Petitioner's witnesses concerning the possibility of Ciguatera poisoning occurring because of possible damage to corals and coral death caused by the dredge and fill operations, and boat operation associated with the marina and Garden Cove are, in reality, only unsubstantiated speculation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue the requested permit subject to the conditions incorporated in the agreement or "conservation easement" executed between the Department and the Respondents with the further condition added to that conservation easement such that the deposition of boats from the inland lakes system into the marina and its access canal be prohibited. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth J. Rickenbacker, Esquire 10500 Southwest 108th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Michael F. Chenoweth, Esquire 522 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Egan, Esquire, Robert Apgar, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SIERRA CLUB: UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; PAMELA BERYL PIERCE, and FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Petitioners, and DOAH CASE NOS. 84-2364 84-2365 FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., 84-2385 a non-profit Florida corporation; 84-2827 THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF IZAAK (Not consolidated) WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Intervenor-Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ASSOCIATES, LTD. a Florida limited partnership, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ENTERPRISE, INC. a Florida corporation, Respondents. /
