Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a rectangular plot approximately 300 feet (north to south) by 1,300 feet (east to west). The property is within the City of Longwood and is zoned light industrial. The land is undeveloped except for a laminated cabinet factory and warehouse owned by Petitioner. The proposed development includes construction of a paved right-of-way sixty feet wide through the center of the parcel. Entry and exit would be from the east with a cul de sac on the west end. The property would be divided into twenty lots, each facing this street. Petitioner contemplates sale of these lots to light industrial users. A tributary of Soldiers Creek which flows into Lake Jessup and ultimately the St. John's River, separates the eastern one third of the property from the remainder of the parcel. This stream is typically one to three feet deep, with very slow movement. Water in the stream bed becomes virtually stagnant during the dry season. The on-site survey conducted by Respondent's environmental specialist established that the ordinary or mean height water line follows the 52 foot contour, creating a stream bed about 400 feet wide across Petitioner's property. The development proposal calls for filling most of this area, retaining a stream channel one hundred feet wide. Petitioner intends to install four 38" x 60" oval culvert pipes at the stream crossing of the proposed roadway. To control runoff from rain showers, Petitioner plans to construct swells on each side of the roadway and drainage troughs and catch basins are intended to retain runoff pollution. However, during peak rainfall periods, these devices will not prevent direct discharge into the watercourse. Petitioner has not conducted any tests to determine the impact of his proposed project on water quality other than percolation tests associated with the use of septic tanks. The stream is heavily forested with mature hardwood trees. The undergrowth includes buttonbush, royal fern, primrose willow and water tupelo. Clumps of pickerel weed are scattered throughout the stream. The stream bottom consists of one to two feet of leaf litter and accumulated organic muck over firm sand. Respondent's dip net sampling produced numerous least killifish, which are indicative of good water quality. Forested streams and bayheads such as this are natural storage and treatment areas for upland runoff, and tend to reduce the peak runoff discharge to lakes and rivers from rainfall. This, in turn, reduces sedimentation rates and the resultant siltation of downstream waterbodies. The proposed project would eliminate approximately one acre of stream bottom and continuous submerged transitional zone lands. Urban runoff can contain significant amounts of pollutants including nutrients, heavy metals, dissolved solids, organic wastes, and fecal bacteria. In industrial situations, such as that proposed here, concentrations of oils, greases, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and phenolic compounds from tire wear, paving and use of other petroleum products are anticipated. The discharge of these contaminants would be harmful to the plant and animal life in Soldiers Creek and the subject tributary. The proposed project would not only reduce existing vegetation which serves as a sediment trap and natural nutrient filter, but would create an impervious (paved) surface which would accelerate runoff and would, itself, be a source of pollution. Water quality would be further reduced by the introduction of fill material and the canalization of the stream, which would increase its rate of flow. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to Respondent's permitting authority over the proposed fill project. Specifically, Respondent has permitting jurisdiction below the 52 foot contour line which defines the stream bed. See Sections 17-4.02(17), 17-4.02(19) and 17-4.28, F.A.C. Subsections 17-4.28(1) and 17-4.28(3) F.A.C., require Petitioner to establish reasonable assurance that the short term and long term effects of the filling activity will not result in violation of the water quality criteria, standard, requirement and provisions of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Petitioner's stream, Soldiers Creek and Lake Jessup are surface waters within the Class III designation of Section 17-3.081, F.A.C. Sections 17-3.061 and 17-3.121, F.A.C., provide the applicable water quality standards and criteria which Petitioner must provide reasonable assurance of meeting. The standards and criteria limit the amount of various chemicals, nutrients, oils and greases which may be introduced as a result of the proposed activity. The evidence adduced herein established that the proposed project would promote substantial changes in these surface waters, degrading their existing quality. These changes would occur through the introduction of oils, greases and other undesirable chemicals and compounds. Further, Petitioner has conducted no specific testing which would establish reasonable assurance that the water quality standards would be met. Petitioner contends that denial of the permit would amount to inverse condemnation or unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation. Such a determination is beyond scope of this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the petition of Jack Cruickshank for a fill permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1981. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William W. Carpenter, Esquire 830 East Highway 434 Longwood, Florida 32750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a water quality control permit to authorize the mining of Miami oolite (limestone) on a site several miles south of Florida City in South Dade County, Florida. The specific location is in Section 18, Township 58 South, Range 39 East, immediately to the west of U.S. Highway One. Petitioner's application was filed with the Department on June 15, 1981. The Department requested various kinds of additional information which were supplied. The application was complete on December 15, 1981. Subsequently a letter of intent to deny the requested permit was issued on February 19, 1982. The reasons for the denial were: The project would destroy approxi- mately 70 acres of Everglades, saw- grass wetlands. The resulting pit would provide a direct access to the Biscayne Aquifer and permit the introductions of pollutants therein. The water body which would be created in the pit would become "waters of the state" and would not meet state water quality standards. The cumulative impact of "existing and proposed similar projects would result in a lowering of the water quality in the surface waters of the Everglades and the ground waters of the Biscayne Aquifer. The Applicant has not given reasonable assurances that the state standards for Class III waters and Class I-B waters would not be violated. Speci- fically the standards for turbidity, biological integrity, dissolved oxygen, lead, and oils and greases would be contravened. Two months later the Department amended its intent letter by adding specific conductance as one of the state standards which the project would violate. Description of the Project The applicant proposes excavating approximately 4,500,000 cubic yards of limestone from a 70-acre cut at the project site. At the conclusion of the mining, which is expected to last five to seven years, the cut will be 62 feet deep and filled with fresh water which will come from rain water and ground water seepage. At all times pertinent to the requested permit Mr. Goldring will own land completely surrounding the resulting artificial lake created by limerock removal. The mined limerock will be crushed at the site and then sold for the construction of roads and production of concrete products. During the period of excavation a "haul road" will be used to allow trucks entering the site from U.S. Highway One to approach the draglines performing the mining. During their operation the diesel pored draglines are expected to drip certain pollutants such as grease and diesel fuel which will enter the water on the site. These pollutants will be limited in their effect to the immediate pit area and while they will violate state standards for visible or undissolved oil, these violations will abate as soon as the mining stops. Jurisdiction The project site is in the middle of a vast sawgrass prairie which is part of the vast Everglades. The site is wet enough to support sawgrass as the dominant vegetation. For approximately ten percent of the year the land is completely submerged but it is apparently dry enough for farming because in the recent past the area was rock plowed. Rock plowing is the removal of surface rocks in order to prepare land for cultivation. The sole source of water on the site is rain water which either falls immediately on the site or to the northwest. During the rainy season there is a sheet flow of water from the northwest to the southeast across the site. This flow from the site is interrupted immediately to the east by U.S. Highway One and to the south by a road called Missile Road. At the intersection of Missile Road and U.S. Highway One there are two culverts several feet in diameter which allow water from the north to flow south into a vast area of more open sawgrass. That area of grass is hounded on the south by another road. As with the Missile Road, there is a culvert under the road. There is again a sawgrass marsh to the south which then abuts a levee constructed on the north of Canal C-111. There are breaks in the levee through which water can flow to reach the channel of C-111 and finally arrive in Florida Bay, a Class III water of the state. Except for the roads and the canal the land between the project site and Florida Bay is covered entirely by sawgrass. Florida Bay which is salt water does not exchange water with the project site which is approximately 4 1/2 miles to the north of the Day. If it did, sawgrass which is a fresh water aquatic plant would not be growing on Mr. Goldring's property. Sawgrass is not present in the culvert which transverse Missile Road and the other east-west road to the south. Sawgrass is also not present on the levee or in the channel of Canal C-111. Dissolved Oxygen Whether or not the state standard 2/ for dissolved oxygen (DO) will be violated is an important issue here. Much of the DO in standing water, such as the lake which will result from the excavation, comes from wind work and photosny-thesis. Wind work is the movement of atmospheric oxygen into the surface of water through the mechanical action of wind flowing across the surface. The photosynthetic action of plants produces dissolved oxygen under water. This action is dependent upon sufficient light. It is a logical conclusion therefore that because more light and all wind work is available at the surface of a water body, as the depth of the water increases, the availability of dissolved oxygen decreases. This simple logic ignores the fact that water mixing can occur through thermal changes. If the surface of a water body is cooled, the upper water layer becomes denser and sinks toward the bottom. This movement has the potential to move dissolved oxygen-rich water down to depths below which dissolved oxygen is ordinarily generated. It is apparently thermal oxygenation which accounts for the presence of water meeting state DO standards being found as deep as 50 feet in limerock pits in Dade County. In the recent study of "wilderness lakes" 3/ by the Department of Environmental Resources Management of Dade County the author concluded that water depth in such lakes is not a controlling factor for water quality parameters such as DO. That study plus data from an Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report "Excavation and Use of Limestone in South Florida" provides reasonable assurances that Mr. Goldring's project will not cause a violation of state dissolved oxygen standards in waters of the state. During sampling for the Corps studies, DO levels of 9.2 milligrams per liter were found as deep as 40 feet in the Florida Rock and Sand limestone pit located less' than one mile to the east of Mr. Goldring's property. Biological Integrity and Turbidity For Class III waters the state standard is that the Shannon-Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced below 75 percent of established background levels. Neither the Department nor the Petitioner has taken any samples to establish what the background levels are on the Goldring site. It is obvious that if large draglines begin excavating, the macroinvertebrates immediately underneath the draglines will be completely destroyed and tide state standard will be violated. This destruction however, is no different from that which occurs in any dredge and fill project and if the biological integrity standards were literally applied no such projects could be permitted. The Department therefore does not apply the standard immediately at the point of either active dredging or filling while such activities are in progress. The same is true of the turbidity standard. A dredging operating in water is bound to violate the 50 Jackson units above background criterion during the actual removal of earth. The Department does not apply the standard at the point of the dredging cut. This interpretation of the rule has its historical origin in concerns expressed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers that if the rules were literally applied, the Corps could never do any work in Florida. Under the Department's present interpretation of its rules that biological integrity and turbidity are to be measured immediately outside the dredging cut, Mr. Goldring has been giving reasonable assurances that those state standards will not be violated here if turbidity curtains are used along the edge of the excavation during periods of high water when the turbidity in the pit could flow out of the pit and onto the surrounding sawgrass plains. Upon its initial review of Mr. Goldring's permit application the Department was concerned about the possibility that lead from gasoline fueled trucks and draglines may be introduced into state waters. This fear has now been alleviated somewhat by the knowledge that diesel fuel will be used for the equipment operating on the site. The Department also expressed concern about the potential for runoff from U.S. Highway One immediately to the east of the site containing lead and entering waters of the state from that sours There is however, no showing that the project will in any way increase the runoff which already exists from U.S. Highway One. Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that the state standard for lead in Class III waters will not be violated by the project. Specific Conductance The standard for specific conductance in state fresh surface waters is for the increase to be not more than 100 percent above background or to a maximum of 500 micromhos per cubic centimeter. The natural background level in the area of the site is less than 100 micromhos. The earlier mentioned Army Corps study shows readings ranging between 270-110 micromhos in limestone pits in South Florida. 4/ From these readings it is reasonable to conclude that there is a substantial possibility that Petitioner's project will cause conductance violations in the pit. Petitioner has not provided any data of sufficient weight to indicate that such violations will not occur. Cumulative Impact The excavation contemplated by the Applicant will result in the destruction of 70 acres of Everglades wetlands and will leave in their place a water-filled limestone pit. The loss of the wetlands will eliminate the cleansing effect which the sawgrass has on water flowing through it. In the instant case however, it does not appear that the waters of Florida Bay where C-111 enters will have Its quality in any way affected' by destruction of sawgrass on Mr. Goldring's property. Also it does not appear that the water in the area immediately surrounding the project site is in need of any cleansing from the sawgrass which may be removed. Except for the Florida Rock and Sand operation to the east of the site, the area is relatively undisturbed and the water quality is not stressed. Since 1979 the Department has processed 35 applications for rock mines in Dade County. The land area involved in those applications is an estimated total of 29 square miles. According to the Corps of Engineers study there are at least ten limestone pits, active or inactive, in Dade County. The limestone reserves remaining in Dade County, though not accurately estimated, are considered extensive. Limerock is the primary mineral resource of any economic value in the Dade County area. The operation of the existing limestone pits has necessarily caused the destruction of wetland vegetation, and thereby eliminated the cleansing of surface waters which the vegetation provides,
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order determining that it is without jurisdiction over the activity for which the Petitioner has sought a permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 26th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1982, Petitioner filed with Respondent a dredge and fill permit application to remove gates and wing-walls from a double-lock canal system presently installed at the Palmetto Point Subdivision in Lee County, Florida, adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. On January 6, 1983, Respondent sent a "completeness summary" to Petitioner, along with a letter advising Petitioner that its permit application was incomplete, and requesting additional information. Petitioner responded to the January 6, 1983, completeness summary by submitting additional information to Respondent on or about February 23, 1983. On March 21, 1983, Respondent sent a second completeness summary requesting further additional information from Petitioner. By letter dated May 18, 1983, Petitioner's attorney advised Respondent that submission of additional requested hydrographic information and water quality data was not justified. The letter further advised that Petitioner intended to rely on the information already submitted, and requested, pursuant to Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes, that Respondent begin processing the permit application. The letter further indicated that petitioner was submitting under separate cover a request that Respondent apply the "moderating provisions" of Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, to the application. The aforementioned rule is entitled "Mixing Zones: Surface Waters." Also on May 18, 1983, Petitioner's counsel sent another letter to Respondent requesting the aforementioned "Mixing Zone." The letter requested the "maximum mixing zone" allowed under the applicable Provisions of Rule 17- 4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had not requested a mixing zone be applied to the permit application prior to the request contained in its May 18, 1983, letter. By letter dated June 17, 1983 Respondent, in response to Petitioner's May 18, 1983, letters, advised that: The additional information [which] was received on May 19, 1983, was reviewed; however, the items listed on the attached sheet remain incomplete. Evaluation of your proposed project will continue to be delayed until we receive all requested information. Respondent's June 17, 1983, letter included a completeness summary, which asked for additional information, including the following requests concerning mixing zones: Your request for a mixing zone is applicable pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-4.244(6). Please provide a map indicating the outermost radius of the mixing zone (no more than 150 meters) and the period of time required. The completeness summary acknowledged Petitioner's refusal to supply additional information concerning hydrographic data and water quality information, and indicated that Respondent would evaluate the project accordingly. By letter dated August 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had been 73 days since notification of the incompleteness of the permit application with regard to the mixing zone request. This letter requested Petitioner to advise Respondent if it wished to withdraw the application, request additional time, or discuss questions regarding the application. The Petitioner did not respond to this communication. On September 9, 1983, Petitioner's attorney forwarded a letter to Respondent requesting a default permit pursuant to Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes. Until this letter, other than a prior oral communication on September 2, 1983, notifying Respondent that the default request was forthcoming, Petitioner had not contacted Respondent concerning the permit application since its May 18, 1983, letters. On October 13, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that the mixing zone request constituted a revision of the application and that the information received to evaluate the mixing zone request was incomplete. Petitioner was also advised that since the additional information requested had not been received, the application remained incomplete and Petitioner was not entitled to a default permit. Whether or not a mixing zone is applied to a permit application is significant because it determines where state water quality standards must be met, either adjacent to the proposed project, or up to 150 meters away from the project location. Under Rule 17-4.244(6), Florida Administrative Code, the 150 meter radius is measured from the point of generation of turbidity or pollution. Since the two locks to be removed were 80 feet apart, it was unclear whether Petitioner intended the point of generation for measuring the radius of the mixing zone to be the northern lock, the southern lock, or some other point. It is equally unclear whether Petitioner intended the mixing zone to extend south into the canal as well as north into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioner never contacted Respondent to clarify the dimensions of the mixing zone being sought, even after Respondent requested a map indicating the outermost limits of the mixing zone in the June 17, 1983, completeness summary.
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are 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 of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. 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 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In March and April of 1976, the petitioner Robert Kornegay placed fill and a culvert across an existing dead-end canal in Oyster Bay Estates, Wakulla County, in order to gain roadway access to other property owned by him. The project involved the placement of approximately fifty feet of fill across an existing upland artificial canal to be used as an access road, and the insertion of a forty-two inch in diameter concrete pipe through the fill. The culvert was placed below or waterward of the mean high water line in an artificially excavated navigable canal near Oyster Bay Estates in Wakulla County, Florida. The canal is approximately one mile in length and contains vegetation which is indicative of regular and periodic inundation. The canal systems in that area lead to the Apalachee Bay, which is a Class II body of water. Concerned that a possible permit and water quality violation was occurring, the respondent's field personnel conducted an on-site investigation of the project in August or September of 1976. It was recommended that certain action be taken and that the petitioner file an application for an after-the- fact permit. Petitioner did file an after-the-fact permit application in March of 1977, with revised plan drawings in May of 1977. A permit application appraisal was conducted by the respondent's environmental specialist in March of 1977. It was noted in his appraisal that poor quality water is frequently created in dead-end canal systems, the most common violations of standards being low dissolved oxygen levels and increased biochemical oxygen demand levels caused by lack of adequate flushing. It was found that the proposed crossing and culvert would greatly reduce the flushing capability of the entire canal system. This would result in violations of standards regulating levels of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand and would also diminish the value of the marsh grasses north of the fill. For these reasons, the field inspector concluded that the project would have a significant, adverse impact on the biological resources and the water quality of Apalachee Bay and the existing canal system, and that the permit application should be denied. Various alternatives or modifications to the project were recommended to the petitioner by the respondent's personnel. Having failed to receive a revised permit application, the respondent issued its letter of intent to deny the after-the-fact permit in August of 1977. This letter informed the petitioner with specificity of the reasons why the project was expected to degrade local water quality and listed the specific water quality standards expected to be violated. At the hearing, the petitioner presented dissolved oxygen data taken from sampling near the culvert and in the Bay. This data was highly unreliable due to an inappropriate sampling methodology, possible machine and operating errors, lack of evidence concerning the calibration of equipment and other quality control data and lack of specificity with regard to sampling locations and conditions. Petitioner did testify that he had had no personal complaints about the project in the five years of its existence. Petitioner presented no other competent evidence to demonstrate that the project would comply with applicable water quality and environmental standards, statutes and regulations. The respondent did receive adverse comments concerning the project from other state and federal regulatory agencies. In a tidal creek or an artificial canal, a decrease in tidal flushing adversely affects water quality over a period of time. A decrease in water motion affects water chemistry by causing particles to settle to a soft organic bottom, eventually suffocating organisms. A reduction in flushing may also have an adverse effect upon nutrient exports which form the basis of the aquatic food web. Indications of a reduction in flushing caused by the subject fill and culvert project have been observed on site by the respondent's environmental specialists. These include indicia of scouring, increased turbulence and eddying, shoaling and creation of a head difference behind the fill. The high flow velocities in the pipe result in scouring, which creates a harsh environment and limits the possibility of plant and animal growth in the vicinity. Such hydrodynamic effects indicate that natural conditions have changed as a result of the culvert and fill and that the project could reasonably be expected to result in an alteration of the natural flow of water and a harmful increase in erosion and stagnant areas of water.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for an after-the-fact permit be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of July, 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 8th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Angerer Post Office Box 10468 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard P. Lee Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Findings Of Fact As planned, Phase I of Foxwood Lake Estates will consist of 300 mobile homes, which would require treatment of up to 45,000 gallons of sewage per day. The proposed sewage treatment plant would have a capacity of 46,000 gallons per day and would be capable of expansion. It would discharge treated, chlorinated water into a completely clay-lined polishing pond that has been designed for the whole of Foxwood Lake Estates at build-out; capacity of the polishing pond would be three times the capacity necessary for Phase I by itself. From the polishing pond, water is to flow into one or both of two evaporation-percolation ponds, either of which would be big enough for all the sewage expected from Phase I. The sides of these ponds would be lined with clay and a clay plug would constitute the core of the dike on the downslope side of each pond. According to the uncontroverted evidence, effluent leaving the treatment plant for the polishing pond would have been effectively treated by the latest technology and would already have been sufficiently purified to meet the applicable DER water quality requirements. The applicant proposes to dig the triangular polishing pond in the northwest corner of the Foxwood Lake Estates property, some 400 feet east of the western property line. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie adjacent to the polishing pond along an axis running northwest to southeast. Their bottoms would be at an elevation of 164.5 feet above mean sea level and they are designed to be three feet deep. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie some 300 feet east of the western property line at their northerly end and some 400 feet east of the western property line at their southerly end. A berm eight feet wide along the northern edge of the northern evaporation-percolation pond would be 50 feet from the northern boundary of the applicant's property. Forrest Sawyer owns the property directly north of the site proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds. He has a house within 210 feet of the proposed sewage treatment complex, a well by his house, and another well some 300 feet away next to a barn. Two or three acres in the southwest corner of the Sawyer property are downhill from the site proposed for the ponds. This low area, which extends onto the applicant's property, is extremely wet in times of normal rainfall. Together with his brother and his sister, Charles C. Krug owns 40 acres abutting the applicant's property to the west; their father acquired the property in 1926. They have a shallow well some 100 feet from the applicant's western property boundary, and farm part of the hill that slopes downward southwesterly from high ground on the applicant's property. Sweetgum and bayhead trees in the area are also a money crop. Charles C. Krug, whose chief source of income is from his work as an employee of the telephone company, remembers water emerging from this sloping ground in wet weather. Borings were done in two places near the site proposed for the ponds. An augur boring to a depth of six feet did not hit water. The other soil boring revealed that the water table was 8.8 feet below the ground at that point. The topsoil in the vicinity is a fine, dark gray sand about six inches deep. Below the topsoil lies a layer of fine, yellow-tan sand about 30 inches thick. A layer of coarser sand about a foot thick lies underneath the yellow-tan sand. Beginning four or five feet below the surface, the coarser sand becomes clayey and is mixed with traces of cemented sand. Clayey sand with traces of cemented sand is permeable but water percolates more slowly through this mixture than through the soils above it. The applicant caused a percolation test to be performed in the area proposed for the ponds. A PVC pipe six feet long and eight inches in diameter was driven into the ground to the depth proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds and 50 gallons of water were poured down the pipe. This procedure was repeated on 14 consecutive days except that, after a few days, the pipe took only 36 gallons, which completely drained into the soil overnight. There was some rain during this 14-day period. Extrapolating from the area of the pipe's cross-section, Vincent Pickett, an engineer retained by the applicant, testified that the percolation rate of the soils was on the order of 103 gallons per square foot per day, as compared to the design assumption for the ponds of 1.83 or 1.87 gallons per square foot per day. Water percolating down through the bottoms of the evaporation- percolation ponds would travel in a southwesterly direction until it mixed with the groundwater under the applicant's property. It is unlikely that the ponds would overflow their berms even under hurricane conditions. Under wet conditions, however, the groundwater table may rise so that water crops out of the hillside higher up than normal. The proposed placement of the ponds makes such outcropping more likely, but it is impossible to quantify this enhanced likelihood in the absence of more precise information about, among other things, the configuration of the groundwater table.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant the application on the conditions specified in its notice of intent to issue the same. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David M. Levin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Gate Petroleum Company (Gate) has provided reasonable assurances that Water Quality Standards will not be violated by the proposed modification of Gate's dredge and fill permit No. 160462149 and whether Gate has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification of that permit will not be contrary to the public interest, nor be the occasion of adverse cumulative impacts to water quality or public interest considerations so as to make this project contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gate Petroleum Company, by and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., proposes to construct a ship- berthing facility for two ships adjacent to Blount Island Channel, along the southeastern portion of Blount Island, in the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The proposed facility would provide for the berthing of two ships of the United States Navy Military Sea-Lift Command in conjunction with the mission of the Navy's Rapid Deployment Force. The proposed facility would be located along the southeasterly portion of "Cut A" of the Blount Island Channel and will consist of a "T-head Pier", a breasting dolphin and cat walk and two mooring dolphins. The pier would be connected to the land by an approach trestle. The facility involved will be constructed by the insertion of concrete pilings into the bottom of the Blount Island Channel and in the adjacent upland, which would support concrete decks and caps. Removal of dredged material will be necessary to accomplish the project and will be performed by a floating hydraulic dredge with associated "Cutter Head." The resulting dredged material would be disposed of in a diked spoil area on either Blount Island or at the Dayson Spoil Site adjacent to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. The Respondent Gate currently holds a DER dredge and fill permit, No. 160462149, authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged spoil and the installation of an associated 5,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead. The proposed installation of the pier and mooring facilities would result in a modification of that permit so that approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead and most of the related dredging will be unnecessary and not performed. Instead, approximately 7,100 cubic yards of dredging would be necessary, without the necessity for bulkheading. The remaining shoreline bulkhead and dredging authorized under the above permit would be rendered unnecessary and replaced by the addition of two additional T-head piers and associated dredging at some indefinite time in the future. The additional piers and dredging are not involved in this permit modification application and are not before the Hearing Officer at this time. The Blount Island Channel of the St. Johns River, the St. Johns River and Clapboard Creek are classified as Class III surface waters of the state pursuant to Sections 17-3.081 and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. It has been established by stipulation of the parties that the proposed modification of the dredge and fill permit will not adversely affect navigation nor the flow of water in the Class III state waters involved. It is also stipulated that the proposed modification will not adversely affect historical and archaeological resources pursuant to Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. It is stipulated as well that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson spoil site will not violate water quality standards at the point of discharge in the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. On March 22, 1989, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation issued its intent to approve the proposed permit modification so as to allow the elimination of the previous requirement in the permit to monitor for copper at the site of the effluent discharge; the relocation of the Blount Island spoil site effluent discharge and the construction of a T-head pier on the southeast side of Blount Island adjacent to the Blount Island Channel. The Department did not initially grant the request to relocate the Dayson spoil site effluent discharge from the Corps of Engineer Channel (Dames Point Cut) to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. On January 31, 1986, Gate was issued permit No. 160462149, pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, with an expiration date of January 31, 1991. It authorizes the dredging and filling on and adjacent to Blount Island referenced above. The permit authorizes those operations in two phases, consisting of new dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards in the existing slipway and test area to obtain a project depth of 40.2 feet mean low water. Maintenance dredging was authorized in the amount of approximately 1,850,000 cubic yards in the slipway to maintain the above-noted project depth. New dredging of no more than 3 million cubic yards from the northeastern and southern margins of Blount Island to a depth of 38 feet mean low water (MLW) and 20 feet MLW on the northeastern and southern portions of Blount Island respectively, with attendant maintenance dredging, was authorized. The permit also allowed he construction of shoreline bulkheads along the eastern and southern margins of Blount Island. That 1986 permit also required disposal of dredged material from both phases of the project into diked areas on Blount Island and the existing diked off-site disposal area known as the Dayson Site, near the mouth of Clapboard Creek. Effluent from both sites was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. Effluent from the Dayson site was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut or routed by pipeline to the Blount Island disposal site for additional treatment prior to discharge. All dredging under the 1986 permit was to be done via a suction, cutter-head dredge apparatus, with the speed of the cutter-head to be controlled so as to prevent excessive turbidity; and with all dredged material to be placed in diked areas, with the effluent discharge being conducted over adjustable weirs. The dredging of the approximately 7,100 cubic yards of material associated with the modification application at issue will be performed with the same type of equipment. Both spoil disposal sites have sufficient capacity for disposal of the material involved with the construction of the T-head pier. The effluent or "de-watering water" generated from the disposal of the dredged material at the Dayson on site will be discharged through a pipe under the St. Johns River to a point near the confluence of the Dames Point Cut and the Old River Channel. That material will consist of approximately 10 percent dredged solid material and 90 percent water. The Dayson disposal site is surrounded by dikes 24 feet high and 120 feet wide at their base. They are so constructed that there will be no discharge of effluent from the Dayson disposal site to Clapboard Creek. Since 1974, over four and one-half million cubic yards of material have been disposed of at the Days on site without any violation of state water quality standards in the creek or the adjacent salt marsh. The entire 7,100 cubic yards of dredged material, together with related water could be placed in the Dayson disposal site without causing any discharge. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. has a five-year lease agreement with Leadermar, Inc. which will operate the T-head pier as a berthing facility for the two ships. The lease was scheduled to commence July 22, 1989. Under the terms of the contract awarded by the Navy to Leadermar, Inc., Gate, or its lessee, is required to maintain a 110 foot, safe working area surrounding the vessels for operation of tugs, lighterage vessels and fendering operations. The contract with the Navy does not require, however, that the safe working area be maintained at a depth of minus 32 feet "mean lower low water" as shown by Gate Exhibit 6 in evidence. 1/ Given the findings made infra., concerning the lack of adverse water quality or public interest impacts caused by the dredging, and the paucity of any attendant suspension of bottom materials in the operation of the ships to be berthed at the proposed facility, the issue of whether the contract with the Navy requires a depth of minus 32 feet "mean low water" or "mean low low water", a reputed difference of 1.03 inches according to the rebuttal exhibit of Respondent Gate, neither Gate's position nor the Navy's reputed position regarding this apparent contractual dispute item, if carried out, would have any adverse water quality or public interest impact in the context referenced in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact remains that Gate has applied for authority to recede from the massive dredging project presently authorized in the existing permit, to stipulate by this modification application that it only seeks to dredge 7,100 cubic yards of material in the area involved. Based upon the depth established by the marine survey conducted by Bennett, Wattels and Associates, there will be an adequate safe working area for tug boats, fuel barges and lighterage vessels, as well as the ships themselves, for operations involving the berthing facilities. See Gate Exhibit 5 in evidence. If the requested modification is granted, Gate will not dredge more than 7,100 cubic yards of material for construction of the pier and related facilities and in order to provide a safe working area as required under Leadermars contract with the Navy. Indeed the amount of material to be dredged for the construction and operation of the T-head pier was based upon the above- referenced Marine survey, unrefuted evidence in this record. The volume of material was calculated by using the Marine Survey depths and the "average end area method," a widely accepted method of such calculation in the marine engineering and construction field. Further, Gate adduced the only substantial evidence in this record concerning the issue of the amount of dredging involved or the extent of the dredged area, as that relates to the "safe working area" and other issues. Water Quality Gates' consulting experts performed various chemical and sediment analyses in the project area in order to establish a general composition of bottom sediments and to establish the likelihood of suspension of any toxic substances or pollutants in those sediments as a result of the dredging operation or the operation of the ships and berthing facilities. Those analyses, and their results, in evidence in this record, were unrefuted. The bottom sediments in the vicinity of the project area are predominantly fine sand with small fractions of silt. In general, the dredged material is most likely to be free from chemical or biological pollutants where it is composed of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert materials, as opposed to large percentages of organic materials, which were not shown to exist in the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the characteristics of the bottom sediments in the project area, there will be no re-entrainment of toxins or pollutants which night presently be sequestered in the sediments due to construction, dredging operations or the operations of the berthing facility and ships involved. An elutriate test was performed to predict the effect on water quality from temporary suspension of the bottom sediments during the dredging operation itself. Elutriate testing is a widely recognized, conservative estimate of contaminant releases, caused by dredging, into a water column. The parameters tested for are those specified in the Department's rules for Class III waters and include cyanide, mercury, silver cadmium, selenium, barium, beryllium, nitrogen, (unionized NH3, NO2, total TKN), fluoride, copper, iron, nickel, zinc, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The elutriate test results did not reveal any excess ion of any of these parameters in terms of the state water quality standards or as to prevailing natural background levels. There are no PCBs, hydrocarbons, heavy metals or pesticides shown to be sequestered in the bottom sediments of the Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. The chemical analyses was performed on composite elutriate samples of sediments which came from the area of the T- head pier location and the area north of the pier, where the propellers of the ships will be located and operated during test trials, after the ships are berthed at the site. Site specific chemical analyses and core borings were taken and compared with historical data or studies for these sites and found to be consistent with them. There is no likelihood of sequestered contaminants in the bottom sediments which would be released, with deleterious effect on water quality, as a result of the action of the dredge equipment or the operation of the ships after the facility is installed. Cutter-head, hydraulic pipeline dredges are not significant generators of turbidity. They are an efficient means of performing dredging and are designed to loosen and remove material from the bottom substrate, without disturbing or redistributing the dredged material around the dredge apparatus in the water column. The use of the hydraulic pipeline dredge will result in minimal water quality disturbance and any dredge-induced turbidity will be of a transitory, short-term nature. It would be localized in the immediate vicinity of the dredge's cutterhead in any event. Ambient water quality conditions can be expected to return to normal background levels in a matter of hours following cessation of the dredging activity. It is estimated by Gate's consultant witnesses that the dredging activity might be accomplished in approximately one day. It has thus been established that the relevant stage water quality standards will not be violated by the action of the dredging equipment and the dredging operation itself. Water Quality Impacts of Facility Operation The two ships of the military sealift command which are to be berthed at the proposed T-head pier are 948 feet in length and approximately 105 feet in beam. They are equipped with two main engines and two propellers. The propellers are 22 feet, 11 and 9/16 inches in diameter. The ships will be in what is known as "reserved operating status". The ships will go through a dry- docking procedure at a local shipyard approximately every two years for major overhauls, repairs and painting. Such maintenance work will not be performed at the project site. The ships will, however, undergo periodic "dock trials" while berthed at the facility. The dock trials will be conducted on a quarterly basis if the vessels have not been out on a mission in that quarter of the year. The dock trial procedure calls for the main propulsion powerplants of the ships to be put into operation and evaluated. Both main engines are tested under this procedure for approximately one hour, at ten revolutions per minute (rpm) ahead and astern. The tests are to be conducted by civilian personnel retained by the Navy or its contractor, with all appropriate safety precaution being taken. These include, but are not limited to, the manning of the bridge during tests by a master or chief mate and by rotating one engine ahead simultaneously with the other engine being rotated astern. The ships are also equipped with onboard, internal sewage treatment plants so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Only routine maintenance or repair work will be performed on the ships at the lay birth facility. The ships will be refueled at the facility from time to time with "bunker c" or diesel fuel brought in by barges. The barges will be conveyed by tugboats of no more than 16 feet draft. The fueling operation will be governed by the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and are performed by Coast Guard certified and licensed personnel. Dr. Neal Boehnke was accepted as an expert in the field of chemical analysis of water and testified on behalf of the Petitioner. In his opinion, water quality in the facility of the proposed project is poor and may contain elevated hydrocarbon levels. His opinions, however, are based upon 1982 and 1983 reports of sampling results allegedly obtained by the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Division and the DER, as well as the study entitled "Survey of Hydrocarbons and the Lower St. Johns River in Jacksonville." These documents were not introduced into evidence. While it is true that an expert may base his opinion on facts and data made known to him in the normal course of his practice at or before trial and that those facts or data may be relied upon by him in formulating his opinions, it must be demonstrated that those facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed." See Section 90.704, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, it was not established by competent evidence or testimony at hearing that the facts or data derived from these documents were of such a type as to be encompassed by this statutory section and thus they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for Dr. Boehnke's opinion. They otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay, not sufficient to support a finding of fact on the water quality impacts from the proposed project and they do not constitute corroborative or explanatory hearsay related to any accepted, competent, substantial evidence in this record for purposes of the hearsay admissibility provision in Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Dr. Loehnke's opinion concerning alleged elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the water at the project site is not credited and is rejected. Dr. Allan Niedororda was accepted as an expert in the fields of oceanography, hydrology and hydrologic assessment. He conducted a study on the potential impact to water quality in the Blount Island Channel which might result from the dock trials to be carried out as a part of the routine maintenance and testing of the ships. His study evaluated the degree to which the propeller wash from the dock trials might entrain and transport bottom sediments, any related pollutants and the effect of this entrainment on water quality in the surrounding water column. His study consisted of field sampling and measurements of currents in the area, laboratory analysis and related data analysis. Bottom sediment samples from the project area were analyzed for particle size and grain size distribution according to standard, scientifically accepted procedures. The bottom sediments in the area of the project site are characterized by a sandy sediment of a fine to medium particle size characteristic. The bottom sediments largely consist of clean sand and small gravels, with some silt composition. The propeller wash which will be generated by the testing of the ships engines was computed to have a speed of approximately one half foot per second. Maximum speed will occur about three propeller diameters behind the plane of the propeller itself or about 72 feet behind the propellers. The bottom tip of the propeller with which the ships are equipped will be six feet off the bottom of the channel at low tide. At the point the propeller wash contacts the bottom, its speed will be approximately two tenths of a foot per second. Such a velocity will not be of sufficient force to produce such sheer stress on the bottom sediments as to entrain them or, that is, to displace them upward into the water column. Dr. Niedororda established that, even if the propeller wash is added to the natural velocity of the water currents at the project site, there would be no entrainment of the bottom sediments which he sampled in the project area. It has also been established that the routine, minor maintenance of the ships and dockage facilities involved in the permit application and the fueling and other operations associated with the berthing, testing, entry and egress of the ships from the proposed berthing facility will occasion no water quality violations, so long as appropriate Coast Guard regulations attendant to fueling and the prevention of the deposition of refuse and other wastes into the waters involved are observed. Any grant of the proposed permit modifications should be conditioned upon the strict observance of those regulations and procedures, especially with regard to the potential for spillage during fueling operations. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes provides that a permit may not be issued unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether this is the case, the Department must consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061; The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It has been established by stipulation that the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water and that the project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Unrefuted evidence adduced by Gate and the Department have established that the project will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, welfare or the property of others, if the project is constructed, installed and operated as proposed in the modification application and as proved in this case. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, as well as fishing and recreational values and marine productivity in the project area will not be adversely affected. No harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the installation or operation of the project facility. In this connection, Dr. A. Quinton White, a member of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner, C.E.S., acknowledged in his testimony that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program proposed to be inaugurated by Gate will adequately protect any Manatees frequenting the area. Manatees are an endangered species, but it has been established that the permit modification proposed, if installed and operated, will not adversely affect the conservation of Manatees or their habitat. The Petitioner adduced no evidence on this issue or any of the public interest criteria enumerated above. The area at the project site is characterized by fairly firm consolidated bottom substrata, characterized by very few submerged grasses. Due to the sandy, hard bottom in the project vicinity, there is a paucity of marine grass upon which Manatee could feed. Consequently, Manatees do not and are not likely to frequent the area involved at the project site as that might reflect on the likelihood of their injury or destruction due to operation of the ships and any attendant vessels. Dr. Niedoroda established that the project and the attendant operations of the ships will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling and witness Gary Tourtellotte, testifying for Gate, established that the effects of the construction and operation of the T-head pier on the benthic community and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project will not induce any adverse effect on those elements of the public interest standards involved. The Petitioner offered no credible or credited evidence of equivalent value which could contradict the evidence adduced by Gate on this aspect of the public interest standards. It is true that dredging of the bottom substrata will temporarily eliminate the benthic community within the dredged area itself. It was established by expert testimony, however, that the benthic community will rapidly re-colonize itself with similar organisms to a naturally occurring degree within approximately 6-12 months. The benthic community in the project vicinity is of a low density nature, with a low diversity of organisms. Those organisms occurring in the project site area are estuarine, marine benthic species commonly associated with sandy or silty bottom substrates. Because the area to be dredged is quite small or approximately .25 acres, and the dredging operations will be of short duration, approximately one day, the dredging operations will not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic communities occurring in the project area or in the adjacent St. Johns River. The dredging associated with the project will likewise not have a significant long-term adverse impact on fisheries resources or marine productivity of the Blount Island Channel or the St. Johns River. This is because the area to be dredged is minimal in size and does not contain critical marine benthic habitat. The turbidity generated will be minimal because the sediments are predominantly coarse sands and gravels. Because of this, any turbidity occasioned by the installation and operation of the proposed facility will be very brief and not of a sufficient significance as to violate water quality standards. In view of the hydrologic analysis in evidence concerning propeller wash effects, the bottom sediments at the ship mooring area will not be entrained or suspended in the water column to any significant degree due to propeller operation of the ships. Thus the benthic community in the mooring area for the ships will not be disturbed due to currents created by the operation of the propellers. In a similar vein, it has been shown that the dredging and operation of the T-head pier and mooring facilities, including the attendant conduct of periodic dock trials and the entry and egress of the ships will not violate the water quality criteria for biological integrity. Indeed, the periodic dock trials are shown to have no impact on the benthic community, the fisheries or marine habitat involved at the project site. It was neither shown that the dredging associated with the construction of the pier and berthing facilities will have any adverse impact on fin fish or shellfish in the project area. It has been established that the project will be of a permanent nature, but it has not been established that the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity in terms of their functions as productive marine habitat, as furnishing fishing or recreational values and the like, will be adversely affected by the proposed project and attendant activity. Deletion of Copper Monitoring Requirement The 1986 permit authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million yards of dredged material with attendant extensive bulkheading in the Blount Island Channel requires also that Gate Monitor for copper every two weeks during discharges at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone for each point of a effluent discharge. Effluent from both the Blount Island and Dayson Disposal Sites is discharged into the Fulton Dames Point Cut. The Petitioner has stipulated that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson Spoils Site will not violate any water quality standard at that discharge point. Elutriate testing and other analyses submitted in support of the permit modification request to delete the copper monitoring requirement in the present permit have shown that there will be no violation of water quality standards as to copper, or any of the other water quality parameters involved due to any re-suspenions of bottom sediment during dredging. There will be no violation of water quality standards for copper, caused by the deposition of spoil, consisting of those bottom sediments, and the draining of effluent from the spoils site into the Dames Point Cut. The Department has independently verified the data submitted by Gate as a result of this testing and it has been established that there is no occurrence of any man induced pollutants in the sediments at the project site which will be deposited in the spoil site, (from which the effluent will be disposed of in the Dames Point Cut) which represents any elevation over natural background levels. The sediments to be dredged from the berthing area are not distinguishable from naturally occurring sediments and the copper values in the sediments to be dredged are no higher than those naturally occurring throughout the area. Thus there will be no adverse impact on the water quality occasioned by discharge of the effluent from the spoil site to the Dames Point Cut area due to copper occurring in the sediments or as to any of the other pollutants enumerated above. Thus, there has been no demonstrated necessity to continue monitoring the effluent from the spoil site for copper. In this regard, the Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing concerning the issue of whether copper monitoring should be continued or not. Cumulative Impact Blount Island was created in the 1950's and 1960's by the filling of its area with spoil material during the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' construction of the Fulton-Dames Point Cut-Off Channel. Since that time, port facilities and an industrial complex have been constructed on Blount Island. It is one of the principle port facilities for the City of Jacksonville. Under the 1982 DER dredge and fill permit issued to Off-Shore Power Systems, and later transferred to Gate in 1986, the developed area of the island adjacent to the original St. Johns River Channel (the Blount Island Channel) was required to be bulk-headed and the channel dredged to -38 feet MLW. The amount of material to be dredged in the old channel of the St. Johns River for construction of the vertical shoreline bulk head totalled approximately 3.4 cubic yards. The T-head pier involved in this modification proceeding, if constructed, would replace 1,000 linear feet of that shoreline bulkhead authorized by the present permit and would substantially reduce the amount or quantity of material to be dredged. Construction of the T-head pier, instead of the permitted shoreline bulkhead, will minimize dredging and the environmental impact of the facility. Gate has elected to rescind its plans to construct the shoreline bulkhead along the eastern shore of Blount Island, as authorized under the existing dredge and fill permit. Gate instead intends to seek future modification of its existing dredge and fill permit to substitute at least 2 additional T-head piers for all of the shoreline bulk head authorized for the eastern shore of Blount Island. The construction of the additional T-head piers will require substantially less dredging than is authorized under the existing permit. Instead of the 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged material authorized under the existing permit, associated with installation of the shoreline bulkhead, the amount of material to be dredged, if indeed 2 additional T-head piers were applied-for and constructed, would amount to only 269,000 estimated cubic yards, as opposed to the originally authorized 3.4 million. Kevin Pope, the DER witness, established that there are no other projects in the area, or reasonably expected to be located in the project area, which would create impacts in addition to or cumulative with the proposed permit modification project so as to create adverse water quality impacts or which would make this project, because of cumulative impact, contrary to the public interest. There are no other dredge and fill projects in the area of the proposed T-head pier which would adversely impact the waters of the Blount Island Channel and the St. Johns River. The proposed modifications are shown not to likely cause any adverse environmental results and, in fact, will result in an environmental benefit as represented by the agreed-upon recession from the extensive dredging and bulkheading authorized by the present permit. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioner to contravene that adduced by Gate and the Department, which establishes the lack of any adverse cumulative impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project, both as to water quality standards and the public interest standards involved in this proceeding.
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 therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving the proposed modification to permit number 160462149 with the proviso that the conditions contained in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law be incorporated as specific conditions in the modified permit, including the additional condition agreed to at Final Hearing that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program will be inaugurated and be incorporated as a specific condition in the modified permit. DONE and ENTERED this 11th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
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, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
