The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a permit to construct a wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Project Celebrity is seeking a DER permit to construct a 0.065 million gallon per day wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility 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 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. The sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent disposal system, consisting of a spray irrigation system, are to be located on the southern end of the site, away from Orange Lake. 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. Some underground pipes for a sewage collection system were installed at the site without an appropriate DER permit. Celebrity stopped the installation upon notice from DER that a permit was required for such installation. The permit needed for the installation of the collection system pipes was not the permit for the sewage treatment project which is being considered in this proceeding. Celebrity was penalized for its collection system violation, which was resolved with a consent order. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) The STP is an extended aeration plant. It is designed to meet secondary treatment standards (90% removal of BOD and suspended solids from raw sewage) and basic disinfection. This type of treatment plant is very reliable. All mechanical components have a 100% backup so if a pump or blower fails, another is available to operate. The STP is designed to be capable of treating the flow from this RV park. Additionally, the facility has a holding pond for treated sewage effluent that can store five days of flow. Furthermore, because the RV park is a transient facility, it is possible in an emergency to shut down the entire plant and have people leave. By its nature, this is much more convenient in an RV park that in a residential or commercial neighborhood. The holding pond is to be lined with a 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, so there should be no leakage to the ground or groundwater even if there is an accident in the STP causing release of untreated sewage into the holding pond. The STP is to be maintained five days a week and must be attended for three nonconsecutive visits a week by a Class D certified plant operator. The amount of dissolved/undissolved heavy metals in the effluent is typically not a problem in domestic sewage effluent such as from the proposed RV park. To the extent that trace amounts of metals will exist, the STP will remove some heavy metals from the effluent during the treatment process and entrain them in the sludge (which will be taken to appropriately licensed landfill). There is no possibility of effluent leaking or discharging from the plant to directly discharge to Orange Lake, even if the STP completely malfunctions. Although the proposed STP is not a highly sophisticated plant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the STP will comply with DER's requirements for secondary treatment and basic disinfection and proper operation. Effluent Disposal System (Spray Irrigation System) Phase I of the effluent disposal system (spray irrigation system) is 3.66 acres in size, with an additional 1.7 acres designated if Phase II is implemented. Approval under this permit authorizes only the 3.66 acres on Phase I. Numerous separate sprinkler heads will spray the treated effluent on the field. The heads can be separately controlled and shut down. The sprayfield is sited on the southwestern corner of the 75-acre site and is separated hydrologically from the Orange Lake drainage basin by the "break" referred to in Paragraph 4 above. Therefore, surface water drainage in the area of the sprayfield drains away from the lake and does not connect back to the lake. The permitted loading rate is 1.7 inches per week, or approximately 24,000 gallons per day at full capacity. This amount corresponds to only approximately 170% of natural rainfall, but is more evenly distributed and controlled. After uptake of nutrients by green plants and evaporation (evapo- transpiration), the average amount of treated effluent that will percolate below the "uptake zone" to the surficial aquifer (to the extent that such exists on the site) is 0.3 to 0.4 inches per week. The surficial water table in the area of the sprayfield generally flows to the north toward the lake, although the flow is not immediately direct toward the lake. The Floridan Aquifer (which is beneath the intermittent surficial water table) in the area of the sprayfield generally flows away from the lake to the south and southeast. There are four sinkholes on the 75-acre site, although none of these four sinkholes have been identified on the 3.66-acre sprayfield. The four sinkholes on the 75-acre site and the majority of sinkholes in the area are "subsidence sinkholes." These sinkholes do not result in an open void down to the limerock after the collapse forming the sinkhole, but instead continue to have unconsolidated material above the limerock, even though a depression forms on the surface. One of the sinkholes has standing water within it and could possibly represent a connection with the lake water table or the Floridan Aquifer, but that sinkhole is separated hydrologically from the sprayfield site by the "break" across the property. There will generally be a slight increase in hydrologic conductivity through a subsidence sinkhole, since the unconsolidated material on the surface remains and is loosened. In some cases there may be even less hydrologic transmissivity due to a "jamming up" of the unconsolidated material, and in some cases there may be an increase in transmissivity when the unconsolidated material falls into an even less consolidated state. A "lineament" may exist on the 75-acre site. A lineament is a fracture zone, which indicates an increase in ground water transmissivity, resulting in an increase in solution of limestone and therefore indicating a more likely location for sinkhole formation. If a sinkhole develops within the sprayfield and if the sinkhole results in an increased area of ground water transmissivity, it could be a conduit for treated effluent to reach the surficial aquifer or Floridan Aquifer. Sinkholes which may form on the site are subject to being repaired with impervious material which prevents their becoming routes of contamination to the aquifer. In addition, the loading rate of any single sinkhole that forms within the spray irrigation field is so light and so easily shut down that there is a high confidence rate that no new sinkhole will act as a conduit for even the small immediate discharge over the area of the new sink to reach the Floridan Aquifer. A spray irrigation effluent disposal system is appropriate for this area which is subject to sinkhole formation. Spray irrigation allows dispersal of the effluent over a large area as opposed to a percolation pond which concentrates in the percolation area and therefore increases the chance of sinkhole formation and the chance of larger amounts of effluent reaching the Floridan Aquifer if all the intervening safeguards should fail simultaneously. In addition, the repair of any sinkhole forming within the sprayfield is simplified by the ability to simply shut off the sprinkler head or heads affecting that sinkhole while repair is being effected. Permit conditions further limit excessive effluent application rates by limiting the amount of flow, prohibiting application during storm events, and requiring monitoring of the flow. Spray irrigation is a common method of effluent disposal which generally has fewer problems than use of percolation ponds. No evidence has been presented that discharge from the sprayfield will cause violations of groundwater quality standards or violations of surface water quality standards, including the Outstanding Florida Water requirements in Orange Lake. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed effluent disposal system will not violate DER water quality standards or other applicable DER rules. Standing Petitioner Suto could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if it causes pollution to Orange Lake since she uses the lake for nature photography. Additionally, she resides to the southeast of the proposed sprayfield and has concerns over contaminated ground water reaching her property and affecting her drinking water. Petitioner Riley could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if there is pollution to the Floridan Aquifer since she lives southeast of the proposed facility and has two drinking water wells on this property. Additionally, Petitioner Riley is a user of Orange Lake and therefore could be substantially affected by the proposed facility if it impacts the lake. Petitioner Solomon could be substantially affected by the proposed project if the project impacts Orange Lake since Mr. Solomon earns his living on the lake as a commercial fisherman and bass fishing guide.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order granting to Celebrity Resorts, Inc., a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility and spray irrigation disposal system subject to the conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue. RECOMMENDED this 15th 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 15th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2722 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 Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 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: 4(1); 5(2); 6(4); 7(5&6); 8- 12(7-11); 13(12); 14(13); 15(14); 16(15&16); 17(17); 18(18); 19-21(20-22); and 22-27(26-31). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 28 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation 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: 4-6(1-3); 7-13(5-11); 14(12); 15-17(13-15); 18(17); 19(18); 20-26(19-25); 27-32(26-31); and 33-35(32- 34). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Delcie J. Suto, Pro Se 2400 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Carol B. Riley, Pro Se 2250 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Crawford Solomon, Pro Se 1303 N.W. 186th Place Citra, FL 32113 Karen English 3680 West Highway 318 Citra, FL 32113 Marilyn Nehring P. O. Box 481 Orange Lake, FL 32112 John Monsees 2400 NW 165 Street Citra, FL 32113 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, E. F. Guyton, has filed an application for a permit which would allow the dredging of a boat slip and construction of a sedimentation basin with boat storage, specifically requiring the excavation of a boat basin, access canal, and access channel on his property which is located on the west shore of Crescent Lake, in Putnam County, Florida. The permit application number is 54-6806. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida which has the responsibility of appraising those applications such as the one submitted by the Petitioner, E. F. Guyton, and making a decision to grant or deny that permit. The authority for such action on the part of the Respondent resides in Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code. This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent's letter of intent to deny the application, as dated August 22, 1978, after which the Petitioner has filed its petition challenging that intent to deny and requesting that the permit be granted. The petition in behalf of the Petitioner was received by the office of the Respondent on September 8, 1978. It was subsequently assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration and that Notice of Assignment was dated September 28, 1978. The proposal for permit calls for excavation of a boat basin 100 feet wide and 480 feet long, leading into an access canal 25 feet wide and 500 feet long. This excavation is in the vicinity of an existing intermittent natural stream. The proposal would call for the removal of approximately 21,000 cubic yards of silt and sand, landward of mean high water. The excavation would be accomplished by use of a dragline to a depth of -2.0 feet MSL. The basin and canal slopes would be 2:1 and stabilization of slopes would be assured by riprap and grassing. A concrete spillway would be constructed at the upper end of the basin to direct the stream flow into the basin. In addition, the proposal calls for the dredging of an access channel through the shallow littoral zone of Crescent Lake to the mouth of the proposed access canal. The dredging involved with the access channel would cause the removal of 400 cubic yards of sediment from an area 250 feet long and as wide as 30 feet. The proposed depth of the channel is 2.0 feet MSL and slide slopes would be 5:1. The spoil would be pumped to a dike holding area on adjacent uplands. The Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, which is the permit application, offers a sketch of the boat basin with secondary sedimentation feature and the attendant access canal and channel. The project lies between U.S. Highway 17 and Crescent Lake, Areas to the south and west of the site are pasture and bayhead wetlands and they serve as a watershed for the aforementioned intermittent stream. Other upland areas in the vicinity are dominated by fully-drained flat woods and well-drained sand hill and messic oak terrain. The project site waterward of the mean high water is part of a shallow littoral zone of the west shore of Cresent Lake. The intermittent stream receives the runoff from the pastureland and drainage from U.S. Highway 17. There is a pronounced change in elevation during the course of the intermittent stream. The submerged littoral zone of the lake, which includes the proposed site of the access canal, falls away at a gentle slope and includes a number of supporting hardwoods, predominantly bald cypress. The area also includes submerged emergent vegetation, which is found in the shallows offshore. These shallows are exposed to favorable sunlight from the point of view of the health of this vegetation. The vegetation includes an emergent bed of oft stem bulrush (Sicrpus validus) which is in line with the proposed channel. Within the photic zone there is submerged tape grass (Valisneria americana) and naiad (Najas sp.). On the shore of Crescent Lake at the project site is found a hardwood swamp in its natural form, together with a creekbed which divides into numerous channels fanning out in the direction of the lake itself. This area of the creekbed contains bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp ash (Fraxinus panciflora), black willow (Salix nigra), black gum (Nyssa biflra), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). The herbs and ferns in this area include penny wort (Hydrocotyl umbellata), arrow- arum (Peltandra virginica), leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). The sediments found in the creek area are sandy to silty sand. In the area where the boat basin/sedimentation facility would be located, the present intermittent stream is much more confined than in the area of the creekbed. Only in times of heavy rainfall does the water come outside the banks of the intermittent stream and inundate the surrounding territory. This portion of the stream is densely vegetated by a mixture of hydrophytes, facultative hydrophytes, an optimally situated upland species. These include sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), black gum (Nyssa biflora), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Additionally, there are slash pine (Pinus elliotii), long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), dahoon (Ilex cassine), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), water oak (Quercus nigra), wild azalea (Ericaceae), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). The sedminets in this area range from very sandy in the slightly higher elevations adjacent to the stream bed to a heavy peat which is found predominantly in the bay tree locations. The uplands in the agricultural area are dominated by water oak, slash pine, long leaf pine, live oak and saw palmetto. A more graphic depiction of the project site and in particular as it relates to the intermittent stream, shore line upland agricultural area, and U.S. Highway 17 may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 and the Respondent's Exhibits 2 through 15, which are photographs of the project site. There are numerous varieties of fish in the area of Crescent Lake through which the access channel would be routed. These include: Seminole killifish (Fundulus seminolis), naked goby (Gobiosoma bosci), black bullhead (Ictalurus melas), brook silversides (Labidesthes sicculus), sunfish (Lepomis sp.), large-mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) . In addition, there are 35 species of invertebrates which were collected in the studies made by employees of the Respondent in their assessment of this permit application. The names of those invertebrates may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 19 which was admitted into evidence in the course of the hearing. The vegetation and shallow water with a sandy bottom, together with the numbers and species of macro invertebrates, small fishes and immature game fishes point to the fact that this part of the lake serves as a valuable site for the propagation of fish, otherwise referred to as a spawning ground. The water quality in Crescent Lake at the site of the project is good, from the standpoint of gross observations. However, there have been some indications of eutrophication in Cresent Lake. A more complete understanding of the water quality may be gained from an examination of the Respondent's Exhibits 21 through 41 admitted into evidence. These exhibits are constituted of certain water quality reports rendered after extensive testing in Crescent Lake. The rainfall in the area exceeds 54 inches a year, with 50 percent of that rainfall being recorded in the wettest quarter, in which over 7 inches a month would fall. July has recorded 15 inches as a mean measurement over the last 80 years, with the month of May showing less than 2 inches, the month of September showing less than 2 inches and the month of October less than 1 inch. In considering the proposed project, a beginning point would be an examination of the ability of the primary filtration pond and secondary filtration function found in the boat basin, to adequately disperse the pollutants which will come into the system from the agricultural area and U.S. Highway 17. That treatment system is inadequate. The inadequacy exists because in periods of low rainfall the pollutants will settle to the bottom of the siltation system and will not be dispersed evenly. This cycle of low rainfall when followed by heavy rainfall, such as occurs in July, will cause the pollutants to be rapidly discharged from the system into the basin of the lake, either in a dissolved form or a free form, causing an unreasonable dilatorious effect to water quality and creating possible turbidity. The confined nature of the proposed channel which empties into the lake will promote scouring because the water is coming out in a more confined area than the natural access allows at present. In addition, the flow velocity in the secondary siltation system is not strong enough to flush out the pollutants in an efficient manner. Finally, channelization promoted by the system would remove a certain percentage of the biological treatment that occurs in the natural intermittent stream, thereby introducing a greater quantity of pollutants into the lake and reducing oxidation that this biological treatment and natural course of the intermittent stream bed now provides. The project, as contemplated, is very similar in its nature to the canal system in Dunns Creek, a body of water adjacent to Crescent Lake. A study conducted on that canal system revealed a very poor quality of dissolved oxygen, which falls below the water quality standards for Class III waters. (A copy of this report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 20 admitted into evidence.) These are the same standards that would apply to Crescent Lake. In addition, there is a lack of flushing and the development of aquatic weeds deterimental to the fish and invertebrates located in the area of the Dunns Creek canals. Therefore, a similar problem could be expected in the project now under consideration. If the project were completed, the excavation of the material would cause disruption of the sediment and water quality degradation if precipitation occurred during the excavation. Efforts at turbidity control would not protect against a heavy rain and the maturely vegetated stream bed and productive littoral vegetation and substrates would be lost. The long term effects of the project would cause degradation of the water quality and a loss of fish and wildlife resources in the impact area. The filtrative assimilative capacity provided by the algae, shrubs, trees and associated substrates involved in the process of absorption and in aerobic bacterial metabolism, would be eliminated by the project and replaced by an intermittently flushed, highly nutrified shallow water lagoon and canal. Pollutants associated with boat operations would further compound the water quality problems and perpetual sediment disruption would occur because of a natural result of shallow water maintenance and use of the system. Siltation and periodic discharge of degraded basin water into the littoral zone of the lake would adversely effect the productive potential and the habitat potential offered by this area in its present form. Based upon a full assessment of the project, it is established that there would be increased and harmful erosion, shoaling of the channel and the creation of stagnant areas of water. It would also cause an interference with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife to an extent that is contrary to the public interest. It would promote the destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nurseries or feeding grounds for marine life and established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as a nursery or feeding ground for marine life or natural shoreline processes to an extent contrary to the public interests. These failings are in direct contravention of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The project would be contrary to State Water Quality Standards, as developed pursuant to authority of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Thus, the Petitioner has failed to give reasonable assurances that the immediate and long term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of the State Water Quality Standards, as required by Rule 17-4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1981, Lee County applied to DER for a permit to construct an extension of Colonial Boulevard east to State Road 82B by dredging 4,600 cubic yards of material landward of the ordinary high water mark, and by depositing 83,000 cubic yards of fill landward of the ordinary high water mark in an area of Lee County known as the Six Mile Cypress Strand or Six Mile Cypress Slough. The permit application was made by Lee County on standard DER forms which would have been appropriate for an application under either or both Chapters 253 or 403, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Lee County tendered a permit application fee to DER sufficient to cover the cost of an application under both statutes. After review of the application, DER determined that it had no jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and refunded to Lee County that portion of the permit application fee required for a Chapter 253 permit. As indicated above, Lee County's application, on its face, reflected that no fill material or dredging was proposed waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The Six Mile Cypress Strand is a meandering swamp, approximately 44,000 acres in size, dominated by cypress trees. At periods of high water the waters of the swamp empty into Ten Mile Canal, an artificial water body which connects to Estero Bay by way of Mullock Creek, a natural stream. All water bodies involved in this proceeding are classified as Class III waters. Six Mile Cypress Strand functions as a major aquifer recharge area for the eastern central portion of Lee County. The area drained by the Strand receives approximately 54 inches of rainfall annually. The wetland vegetation and uneven contours of the Strand allow the assimilation of nutrients and reduction in turbidity and erosion which could otherwise adversely affect downstream waters. The drainage area north of the proposed project consists of approximately 5,000 acres, or 11 percent of the total drainage basin served by the Strand. The proposed roadway would cross the Strand through a corridor which contains three cypress heads, or flag ponds. These ponds generally retain water during dry periods and support a more diverse community of aquatic life than those portions of the Strand which become completely dry. At the time of final hearing in this cause, these ponds exhibited dry season characteristics and contained less than one foot of water in their deepest portions. During low water periods the Strand itself may be virtually dry except for standing water in the vicinity of cypress heads and flag ponds. Only during the rainy season, which occurs during approximately four months of the year, does the Strand contain standing water. During high water periods, however, water may flow continuously throughout the length of the Strand. During these latter periods, canoes and other such small water craft may be able to negotiate portions of the Strand. No evidence was presented, however, which would indicate that the Strand is now or has ever been utilized, or is susceptible to utilization, for commercial boat traffic. The lands in the Strand over which Lee County proposes to build the roadway were conveyed by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to private ownership after having been acquired from the federal government under the Swamp and Overflow Grant Act of 1850. The Strand was not meandered in the original government survey of the area, and, in fact, the surveyor's field notes reflect that the area of the Strand was densely vegetated and crossed by several roads, including one crossing the section line in the same vicinity proposed for the Colonial Boulevard extension. The existence of this last referenced road is corroborated by biological evidence presently existing on the site, and from examinations of full infrared aerial photography of the area. It is approximately nine miles from the Strand to the nearest meander line contained in the original government survey. Further, evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that water craft may not presently be navigated from Estero Bay into the Strand because of man-made barriers, and no record evidence establishes that such navigation would have been possible at the time of Florida's admission to statehood in 1845 when the stream presumably was in its natural condition. The Department of Natural Resources was notified in accordance with DER policy, of the pendency of Lee County's application, and asserted no claim of ownership over sovereignty lands in the area of the proposed project. The design for the proposed roadway includes a system of collector and spreader swales on the upstream and downstream sides of the Strand, respectively, connected by large culverts to be located beneath the roadway. The swales and culverts are intended to minimize interruption of the Strand's hydroperiod, the natural fluctuation and flow of waters within the affected portion of the Strand. A vegetated swale system paralleling the roadway is also included in the proposed roadway design to provide treatment and nutrient uptake from storm water runoff generated from the surface of the roadway. In addition, the toe of the slope of the roadway will be replanted with native vegetation, and the edge of the fill area will be meandered to save some existing vegetation. It is anticipated that the roadway could result in runoff containing from .17 to .18 pounds per day of nitrogen, and from .01 to .07 pounds per day of phosphate. The grassy swales proposed for inclusion in the project design have the capability of assimilating from 1.8 to 3.6 pounds of these nutrients per day, thereby ensuring a significant safety factor. It can also reasonably be anticipated that the swale areas are capable of absorbing any BOD loading from the roadway surface. As a result, it can reasonably be anticipated that the construction of the project will not result in the discharge of nutrients into the Strand, and that any heavy metals will be bound in organic sediments and not result in degradation of existing water quality. Ambient water conditions in the Strand show low dissolved oxygen content together with high biochemical oxygen demand, neither of which should be exacerbated by construction of the project. No violation of water quality criteria relating to herbicides is anticipated in view of Lee County's commitment at final hearing in this cause to control vegetation by way of mowing instead of by the use of herbicides. The proposed construction will, of course, destroy aquatic vegetation in the area lying in the path or "footprint" of the roadway itself, consisting of approximately seven and one-half acres, three acres of which are predominantly cypress. However, because of the design features of the proposed roadway, including grass, collector and spreader swales and the culvert system, the anticipated impact on the hydroperiod upstream and downstream of the project, and thereby the effect on aquatic vegetation and water quality will not be significant. Construction fabric will be used to allow the road surface to be supported without demucking, thus minimizing turbidity during construction periods, although it is intended that construction be conducted during the dry season, thereby further reducing the potential for turbidity violations. Further, the detention swales which are to be equipped with French drains are designed to retain the first inch of rainfall. Culverts to be constructed on the roadway are designed to accommodate a 50-year, 24-hour storm event. The Secretary of DER issued the subject permit on August 18, 1981, without any prior notice of intent. ASSWF received notice of DER's action in the form of a complete copy of the permit on August 27, 1981. On September 2, 1981, ASSWF filed its petition requesting a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. This petition was received by DER on September 8, 1981. ASSWF and Audubon, and the members of these organizations, use the Six Mile Cypress Strand in the vicinity of the proposed project for field trips and environmental education activities which will be impacted should the project be approved. In addition, Audubon owns property within the Strand which may also be affected by the proposed project if permitted. Intervenors, Community Council and Lehigh Acres of Florida, Inc., Ralph Marciano, Claudia Tipton and H. Mark Strong requested to be granted party status in this proceeding in support of the application. Ralph Marciano owns a business allegedly limited because of the present poor highway access to the business center of the city. Claudia Tipton owns an electrical construction business alleged to be seriously hampered because of extended transportation time in emergency trips. H. Mark Strong is a retired fire marshal and contends that paramedics are seriously hampered in transporting emergency patients to the community hospital located in Fort Myers. The Community Council of Lehigh Acres was formed to serve as a council representing the entire community of Lehigh Acres on problems and projects affecting the health, welfare, growth and prosperity of Lehigh Acres. Essentially, these intervenors assert that the general public welfare and, in some cases, their own personal business interests, will be enhanced by building the proposed roadway, thereby enhancing vehicular access to various portions of the community.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James C. Dougherty owns property known as Buccaneer Point, which is a peninsula on the western side of Key Largo, Florida. This property is also known as Buccaneer Point Estates, and is a residential subdivision. On June 26, 1979, the Petitioner individually and as a trustee, applied to the Respondent for a permit to conduct dredging and filling activities at the aforementioned property, in particular, the project contemplated dredging access channels in Florida Bay and Buttonwood Sound and the connection of two existing inland lakes on the property site to those water bodies. After review, the Respondent denied the permit request and asserted permit jurisdiction in keeping with Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and associated regulatory provisions found in the Florida Administrative Code. Having been denied the permit, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to consider the matters in dispute and a hearing was conducted on the dates alluded to in this Recommended Order. The hearing was conducted in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The denial of the permit request was in the form of a letter of intent to deny dated May 27, 1980. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. Following the receipt of the letter of intent to deny, the Petitioner commenced a series of revisions to the project leading to the present permit request which is generally described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. If the project were allowed, it would call for the dredging of access channels in Florida Bay and Buttonwood Sound, those channels to be 75 feet long and -5 feet N.G.V.D., with side slopes of 1:3. Additional inland canals would be dredged to connect the access channels with the interior lakes, the north channel being 100 feet wide -6 feet N.G.V.D. and 400 feet long, and the south canal being 62 feet wide -6 feet N.G.V.D., and 225 feet long. Side slopes of the canals would be 1:3. The project also intends the connection of the two interior lakes by the excavation of a 162-foot long by 50-foot wide connection or plug at a depth of -5 feet N.G.V.D. The material from this excavation of the plug would be used as ton soil on the uplands. Finally, the permit proposes the shoaling of the North Lake on the property to -15 feet N.G.V.D. by the use of clean limerock fill. Through its opposition to the project, the Respondent has indicated concerns that bay grass beds would be damaged over the long term by boats as a result of the dredging of proposed channels and canals; a concern about increased BOD demands which would lower water quality following the long-term accumulation of organic materials in the channels. The Department also contends that construction of the south channel would destroy productive grass beds and "vegetated littoral shallows," which now serve as a nursery and feeding ground for numerous invertebrates. Respondent believes that the north channel would eliminate an area of mangrove wetlands which filters nutrients and toxic materials and serves as a nursery and feeding ground for estuarine organisms and wading birds. The Respondent also feels that the north channel would disturb a stable mangrove humus peat band, which now supports large numbers of invertebrates and which band extends along the northern shoreline of Buccaneer Point. The Department, in discussing the acceptability of the permit, has expressed concern that bottoms adjacent to the north channel would be harmed by increased erosion and sedimentation of the disturbed mangrove peat. Respondent has further stated that water in both interior lakes is now in violation of water quality standards and that water quality data shows high oxygen demands. The Respondent has put at issue the Petitioner's hydrographic report on the flow-through lake system, citing what it believes to be errors in the report. The Respondent has expressed specific concern about water quality standards as set forth in the following rules: Rule 17-3.121(5), Florida Administrative Code, Bacteriological Quality; Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code, Biological Integrity; Rule 17-3.061(2)(b) Florida Administrative Code, BOD; Rule 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code, Dissolved Oxygen; Rule 17-3.121(20), Florida Administrative Code, Nutrients; Rule 17-3.061(2)(j) Florida Administrative Code, Oils and Greases; Rule 17- 3.061(2)(1), Florida Administrative Code, Phenolic Compounds; Rule 17-3.121(28), Florida Administrative Code, Transparency; and Rule 17-3.061(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Substances. The Respondent indicated that it felt the project would be adverse to the public interest because it would cause erosion, shoaling, or creation of stagnated areas of water, would interfere with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife or other natural resources, and would result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds or marine productivity, including destruction of natural marine habitats or grass flats suitable as nurseries or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils which are suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. The project was also thought by the Department to be not in the public interest because it would reduce the capability of the habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population because it would impair the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. The Petitioner has employed hydrographic engineers to conduct a study of the flushing characteristics of the system, should the access channels, canals and interior connections be allowed. It is an undertaking on the part of the Petitioner dealing with physical characteristics of the waterway and the forcing conditions in and around the site, which include tidal flow, wind-driven flow and mean sea level changes. The two State water bodies at the site, Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay, are separated by the project site and other islands at the northern tip of the project. The effects of this separation changes the arrival time of high tide at the northern and southern extremities of the project site promoting a mean sea level surface difference between Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay. The sea level difference or "head" assists in generating flow in the sense of moving the water from the high to the low elevation. To gain an exact measure of the hydraulic head, tidal gauges were placed at the northern entrance channel and in the southern entrance channel. The use of these gauges over a period of time allowed the determination of the spring and neap tide conditions. The "head" differences finally arrived at by calculations by the Petitioner's experts assisted in the creation of a mathematical model to determine flows in the water system. This lead to an estimate of flushing time of 2 1/2 days. See Petitioner's Exhibits 7-9,admitted into evidence. In turn, an estimation was made that approximately half of the flow which presently flows through Baker Cut, at the project site, would be diverted to the waterway system if constructed and this in conjunction with other calculations led to the conclusion that the flushing time was 3 to 4 days as opposed to the 2 1/2 days arrived at by the mathematical system. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10, admitted into evidence. The estimate of 3 to 4 days was the more current study and was premised upon conditions of an adverse south, southeast wind which would cause the water to move north, absent current conditions, as opposed to this south direction which was the normal direction of movement. The Petitioner also examined the flushing characteristics of similar projects which were not as favorable because of a lack of "head" differences which assisted in the flow of the water. Based upon the results of the studies conducted by Petitioner's experts, the flushing time of the system is found to be 3 to 4 days. While there is some correlation between a short flushing time for a water system and the water quality within that system, examination of other channel systems in the Florida Keys indicates that short flushing times do not always cause the waters to meet State water quality standards. For that reason, water quality considerations must be dealt with bearing in mind the physical characteristics of the system extant and as proposed using flushing time as a part of the equation. Those specific water quality criteria will be addressed in subsequent portions of these findings. Tests conducted by the parties dealt with the amount of dissolved oxygen in waters at the project site, and revealed dissolved oxygen levels of less than 4 parts per million, even when testing at depths less than 15 feet. This condition is one which is not unusual for natural water systems which have remarkable stability and are not the subject of flow or flushing, as example in mangrove forests. If the system were open, dissolved oxygen levels in the interior lakes would improve, though not necessarily to a level which no longer violates State water quality considerations related to dissolved oxygen levels. On the related subject of BOD or biochemical oxygen demand, that demand placed on oxygen in the water biochemicals or organic materials, the system as it exists and as proposed does not appear to cause excessive BOD, notwithstanding an 8 to 12 foot wide band of peat substrate in the area of the North Lake wall. Although the biochemical oxygen demand related to the layer of peat in the lake's system in its present state presents no difficulty, if the water system were open this peat layer would cause a significant amount of loading of biochemical oxygen demand in the lake system and eventually the surrounding water bodies. On the question of nutrients in the marine system, reflected by levels of phosphorus and nitrogen or variations impact the compensation point for the North Lake. In fact, there would be improvement in transparency or clarity for both lakes. Nonetheless, in the short run, the turbidity problems associated with the placement of clean limerock fill over the flocculent peat material would violate the transparency standard in that location. On the subject of toxic substances, meaning synthetic organics or heavy metals in sea water, tests by the Petitioner at the project site and comparison site demonstrated that those substances would not exceed the criterion related to those materials. On the subject of fecal coliform bacteria, water quality samples were taken at the project site and a comparison site. The residences now at the project site and those at a development known as Private Park use septic tanks. In view of the porous nature of the limerock foundation upon which the residences are built and in which the septic tanks are placed, the possibility exists for horizontal movement of the leachate into surrounding waters of the project site and the landlocked lakes; however, this movement is not dependent upon the opening of a flow-through system at the project site. Moreover, tests that were conducted in the comparison site and project site reveal less than one fecal coliform bacterium per 100 milliliters and if the system were open, the circulation in the lakes would lower the residence time of leachate. In describing the habitat afforded by the interior lakes as they now exist, the North Lake does not afford animals or fish the opportunity to colonize, because there are no areas where they may disappear into the lake. This limits the opportunity for habitat to those animals who have their entire life cycle in a landlocked system, and necessarily of those substances in the water, water quality standards for nutrients will not be substantially altered by the proposed project. In other words, the project will not cause an imbalance in natural aquatic flora or fauna population, by way of advent of phytoplankton bloom leading to eutrophy. The nutrient samples taken in the interior lakes demonstrate normal sea water levels and those levels outside the lake were low and the flow-through system is not expected to raise nutrient levels. Sampling for oils and greases in the comparison waterways where residential development had occurred in the lakes and ambient waters at the site, did not indicate problems with those substances in the sense of violation of State water quality standards. Sampling for phenolic compounds at the comparison sites and at the lakes and ambient waters at the project site showed less than .001 micrograms per liter in each instance of the sample. There are no sources or potential sources of phenols at the site. On the question of the State water quality dealing with transparency, that standard requires that the level of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity shall not be reduced by more than ten percent (10 percent) compared to natural background levels. The compensation point for photosynthetic activity is the level at which plant and animal respiration and photosynthetic activity are equal. In static state, the Petitioner's analysis of this criterion revealed that the North Lake compensation point would be below 15 feet and the South Lake would have no compensation point, due to its shallow nature. In the long run, the opening of the proposed connections in the planned development together with the shoaling, would not negatively excludes animals with a long larva stage. Examination of comparison sites pointed out the possibility for colonization at the project site should the waterways be opened. Specific testing that was done related to colonization by fishes, in particular sport and commercial fishes, demonstrated that those species increased in richness, density and diversity if a system was opened by channels and canals. In addition, the comparison of this project site and systems similar to that contemplated by the open waterway indicated that sea grasses would increase after a period of years if the system were open. Sampling was conducted in substrates to gain some understanding of the effect of the proposed project on the Shannon Weaver Index, i.e., whether there would be a reduction by less than 75 percent of established background levels. Although there would be no problem with the biological integrity standard related to South Lake and its waterway, the North Lake and waterway system could be expected to be in violation of that index due to the present circumstance as contrasted with that circumstance at the point when water flowed through. If the waters were opened to the project site, marine biological systems on the outside of the interior lakes would be given an opportunity to use those lakes as a nursery ground or spawning site for fishes, a refuge in cold weather conditions and a site for predators to find prey. If the lakes were opened to the outlying areas, alga, grass populations, mobile invertebra, plankton and other forms of life could utilize the interior lakes. In the area where the north canal or inland canal would be placed are found red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves (Avicennia germinas) . The mangroves are frequently inundated by tidal waters and are the most mature and productive of the mangroves which are found at the property site. Some of those mangroves are located waterward of the line of mean high water and would be removed if the project is permitted. The mangroves at the project site provide filtration of sediments and nutrients contained in stormwater runoff from adjacent upland areas, as well as from tidal flows. This filtering process is an essential part of the maintenance of water quality in the adjacent open bay estuarine or marine system. Nutrients in the tidal waters, as well as runoff waters, are settled out and in the sediments retained by the mangrove roots and are transformed into vegetative leaf matter by the mangroves as they live and grow. The root systems of the mangroves and their associated vegetation provide stabilization of estuarine shoreline sediments and attenuation of storm-generated tides. These mangrove wetlands provide unique and irreplaceable habitats for a wide variety of marine as well as upland wildlife species. The mangroves also contribute leaf or detrital matter to the surrounding State waters and estuarine system in the form of decayed leaf litter. This organic component forms the basis of the marine food chain and is used directly for food by a variety of marine organisms, including small fish. Commercial and sports fish species feed directly on the mangrove detritous or on the fish or other forms of marine life that feed on that detrital matter. In removing the mangroves, the applicant causes a loss of the function which those plants provide in the way of filtration and the promotion of higher water quality and causes biological impact on marine organisms, to include sports and commercial fishes. In the area of the north access channel, there exists a band of stable mangrove peat which is 50 to 75 feet wide and one to two feet thick. Waterward of this expanse of humus is located a sandy bottom vegetated by turtle grass and other sea grasses and alga. The turtle grass in the area of the proposed north channel serves as a nursery and feeding ground for a rich and diverse aquatic community, including species of oysters, clams and other mollusks, as well as commercial and sports fish. This grass also filters and assimilates contaminants in the water column and serves to stabilize sediments to prevent turbidity. Dredging would destroy the turtle grass beds and their functions. These impacts on mangroves and sea grasses are significant matters, notwithstanding the fact that the possibility exists that mangroves would repopulate in the area of the north channel and North Lake, together with the repopulation of sea grasses in that area after a period of years. The south waterway would cause the removal of certain sea grasses, which could be expected to revegetate. Moreover, at present, the sea grasses in this area are sparse due to the shallow waters in that area, which waters are too warm for sea grasses to thrive. Construction of the access channel would result in increased erosion and sedimentation based upon boat wake wash and in turn allow for adverse impact on the biologically productive bay bottom. Water quality degradation can be anticipated because of the erosion and leaching of dissolved particulate material from the disturbed peat band at the shoreline and into shallow waters in the bay and into the North Lake. Transition from the inland channels to the bay side access channels at the north and south will be box cut at the mean high water line and in view of the fact that the inland channels are 100 feet wide and the bay side access channels are only 50 feet wide, erosion can be expected, causing turbidity.
The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Dames Point Workboats, LLC, is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 20, 2018, and subsequently amended on December 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing ("Petition") with DEP on August 17, 2018. Respondent Workboats is the applicant for the Project. Its business address is 5118 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32226. Workboats' owner, Shafnacker, owns the property located upland of the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Project is proposed to be constructed and operated. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to those statutes. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. Pursuant to section 253.002, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny applications for sovereignty submerged lands leases. The Back Channel and Vicinity of the Project The Project is proposed to be located in the "Back Channel" area of the St. Johns River, directly across from Blount Island. The Back Channel, as a part of the St. Johns River, is classified as a Class III waterbody. It is not designated an Outstanding Florida Water, is not located within an Aquatic Preserve, and is not designated for Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting. The Back Channel is configured in the shape of an inverted "U" and runs between Blount Island and Heckscher Drive, from the southeast corner of Blount Island to the bridges located on the northwest side of Blount Island. It constitutes a portion of the historic main channel of the St. Johns River and was used for all vessel navigation in the river until the Dames Point Cut was dredged through a peninsula to the south, creating Blount Island and a new straight channel to the Atlantic Ocean. Most vessels, including large ships, use the Dames Point Cut for ingress into and egress from the St. Johns River. However, the Back Channel remains navigable and is used for recreational activities and some commercial and industrial navigation. A mix of residential, commercial, and industrial and land uses is located on the north shore of the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. These uses consist of approximately 90 single-family residences having docks, three fish camps/recreational marinas, two restaurants, and docking structures used for mooring inshore shrimping vessels. A docking facility owned by M & M Shrimp and used for mooring shrimping vessels is located on the Back Channel immediately to the west of the Project site. A residence owned by Wood is located on the Back Channel immediately east of the Project site. Four other residences are located immediately east of Wood's residence, and back up to the Back Channel. Most of the shoreline on which these residences are located consists of riprap; however, a small patch of salt marsh borders the shoreline on Wood's residential parcel. Although Blount Island is a heavy industrial port, its northern shoreline on the Back Channel, across from the proposed Project site, consists of relatively undisturbed salt marsh and trees. The northeastern shoreline of the Back Channel generally consists of salt marsh and riprap, with docks constructed along the shoreline. Two bridges connect Blount Island to the mainland a short distance west of the proposed Project. These bridges each have a clearance of approximately ten feet, so they cannot be cleared by large vessels. As a practical matter, this has the effect of limiting the size of vessels that use the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. The Back Channel west of the bridges to the southwestern tip of Blount Island is fronted by heavy industrial uses, and numerous multi-family residential and industrial docking facilities are located in this area. A slow speed, minimum wake zone for boat operations extends 300 feet out into the Back Channel from both the north and south shorelines. The Back Channel is approximately 1,340 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be constructed. The Proposed Project The proposed Project will be constructed and operated4/ as a commercial tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/ offloading facility. The Project is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands5/ and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and sovereignty submerged lands lease are required for construction and operation of the Project.6/ The Project will be located waterward of the mean high water line on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to four upland waterfront parcels that are owned by Shafnacker. These lots are: Lot 6 (5100 Heckscher Drive, RE 159971 0000); Lot 7 (5110 Heckscher Drive, RE 159972 0000); Lot 8 (5118 Heckscher Drive, RE 159973 0000); and Lot 9 (5120 Heckscher Drive, RE 159974 0000). Collectively, these lots have approximately 425 feet of linear shoreline, as measured at the mean high water line, bordering the Back Channel. This shoreline is comprised of salt marsh and riprap. A substantial portion of lots 6, 7, and 8 consists of salt marsh wetlands. No structures are proposed to be constructed on Lot 6. The salt marsh areas on lots 7 and 8 are traversed by existing pile-supported piers/access docks. To the extent they are replaced, such replacement will be by like-for- like structures, so there will be no new impact to the salt marsh wetlands on these lots. Most of Lot 9 consists of upland, some of which is authorized to be refilled under the Consolidated Authorization. A small wetland area consisting of approximately 18 square feet of salt marsh will be crossed by a new dock, but will not be filled or otherwise physically impacted. Dock A is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 7, and will consist of a 15.4-foot-long by 8-foot-wide extension added to the waterward end of an existing 150.8-foot-long by 8-foot-wide wooden dock, plus a 4-foot-long gangway attached to the waterward end of the extension, which will connect to a 100-foot-long by 9.5-foot wide concrete floating dock. Dock B is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 8, and will consist of a 40-foot-long by 10.3-foot-wide concrete floating dock with an 18-foot-long by 6-foot-wide platform, and a 4-foot-long gangway attached to an existing 125.2-foot-long by 5-foot-wide wooden dock. Dock C is proposed to be located on Lot 9, and will consist of a new inverted-L-shaped dock consisting of a 71-foot- long by four-foot wide pile-supported finger dock extending perpendicular to the shoreline into the Lease area, and a 26-foot long by 4-foot-wide dock running roughly parallel to the shoreline that will be constructed outside of the Lease area. Four wooden pilings also are proposed to be installed waterward of Lot 9. Three of these pilings will be located along the eastern boundary of the Lease, and the piling closest to the shoreline of Lot 9 will be located outside of the Lease area. All of these pilings will be set back 25 feet from Workboats' eastern riparian rights line. The newly constructed piling-supported dock additions to docks A and B, and new Dock C, will be elevated four feet above the marsh and will be constructed by hand-laying planks from the shoreline outward into the water, using the previously- laid planks as support while laying the new planks. Three three-pile mooring dolphins also are proposed as part of the Project. They will be installed within the Lease area, set back 38 feet from the southern boundary. No dredging is proposed or authorized for the Project. The Lease will be issued for a term of ten years and will preempt approximately 49,746 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands. The western boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet east of the upland property's western riparian rights line, and the eastern boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet west of the upland property's eastern riparian rights line. With the exception of a portion of Dock C and one wood piling that will be constructed on submerged land owned by Shafnacker,7/ all other structures proposed as part of the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease, and all vessel mooring and over-water operational activities authorized as part of the Project will occur within the Lease area. The Consolidated Authorization authorizes the placement of approximately 3,500 square feet of fill landward of the mean high water line and the jurisdictional wetland line, to replace historic fill eroded by hurricanes in 2017. Additionally, as a condition of the Consolidated Authorization, Workboats is required to restore approximately 250 square feet of salt marsh cord grass waterward of the mean high water line on Lot 9 as corrective action for unauthorized filling/destruction of salt marsh wetlands. As noted above, when constructed, the Project will operate as a tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/unloading facility. Workboats owns a fleet of approximately 40 vessels, comprised of barges, tow/push boats, and work boats, which are used to provide a range of marine services to third parties, including the transport/delivery of food and other supplies; artificial reef placement; marine demolition; and pile driving. These vessels will be moored at the docks, mooring dolphins, and mooring piles comprising the Project.8/ Of these 40 vessels, 28 are barges that range from ten to 130 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 feet deep. The remaining 12 vessels are boats that range from 14 to 46.2 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from one foot to 6.8 feet deep. The water depths within the Lease area range from one tenth of one foot immediately adjacent to the shoreline, to between 39.5 and 43.5 feet deep at mean low water at the southern boundary of the Lease. Only one or two of the smaller boats in Workboats' fleet have drafts that are shallow enough to enable them to moor on the shoreward sides of Docks A and B. In any event, all vessels must moor in areas within the Lease area having depths at mean low water sufficient to ensure that they do not come into contact with submerged resources. To that end, a condition is included in the Consolidated Authorization requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of a vessel with the motor in the "down" position and the top of submerged resources at mean low water. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that with the exception of the 32-foot-long Marlin Barge and the 10- foot-long Galligan barges, all other barges in Workboats' fleet will moor at the three-pile dolphins near the southern boundary of the Lease. Some barges will be anchored to the substrate by spuds, and the condition requiring 12 inches of clearance between the vessel bottom and the top of submerged resources would not apply to the spuds themselves. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that Workboats will only load vessels from Dock B, which is appurtenant to Lot 8, and that the only equipment that will be used to load vessels will be equipment small and light enough to traverse Dock B——specifically, a Takeuchi mini-excavator, small forklift, or similarly-sized equipment. These limitations regarding the loading of vessels within the Lease area are not currently included as conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the parties' stipulation and competent substantial evidence in the record, conditions should be added to the Consolidated Authorization expressly limiting the loading of vessels in the Lease area to occurring only on Dock B, and limiting the type of equipment used for vessel loading and unloading to forklifts, mini-excavators, or similar light equipment. Shafnacker testified that the only other work that may be performed within the Lease area would consist of certain minor maintenance activities on Workboats' vessels; these minor repair activities include non-routine paint touchups and handrail painting, minor cable and winch repairs, and minor steel-rod (non-lead) welding. DEP Review and Approval of the Project Workboats filed a Joint Application for Individual Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit ("Application") on or about June 15, 2018. The Application was determined to be complete. DEP staff reviewed the Application and determined that the Project, as proposed, met the applicable statutory standards and rule requirements for issuance of the Consolidated Authorization. DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent on or about July 20, 2018, proposing to issue the environmental resource permit and Lease for the Project. The Application, Consolidated Notice of Intent, and Consolidated Authorization were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. Compliance with Rule 62-330.301 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it must provide reasonable assurance9/ that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.301.10/ Water Quantity, Storage, Conveyance, and Flooding Impacts The entire Project, as proposed, will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line and will consist of mooring piles, piling-supported docks, and floating docks. These structures will not affect, impound, store, divert, or impede the amount or flow of surface water. The evidence demonstrated that the Project, if constructed and operated as proposed, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Impacts to Value of Functions Provided to Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and Habitat Two types of habitat exist at the Project site: salt marsh and submerged benthic habitat. The evidence established that the salt marsh at the Project site is healthy, high-quality, high-functioning salt marsh habitat. Among the functions the salt marsh provides are preservation and improvement of water quality by filtering runoff, serving as a nursery for fish species, preventing shoreline erosion, and forming the base of the estuarine food chain. The salt marsh, in combination with existing riprap at the edge of the salt marsh, forms a "living shoreline" at the Project site that helps protect the shoreline from erosion and scouring due to wave action. This living shoreline is not being removed or otherwise affected, and will remain in place at the Project site. The submerged benthic sediment at the Project site consists of high organic silts and a sand base. The evidence established that the benthic sediment provides habitat for infauna, such as polychaete worms; and for epifauna, such as shrimp, crabs, and mollusks. No submerged aquatic vegetation or oyster bars were found at the Project site. Docks A and B consist of extensions that will be added to two existing docks that previously were constructed through the salt marsh. These extensions will be constructed four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, using minimally- impactful construction techniques, discussed above, to help avoid and minimize construction impacts to the marsh. The floating components of docks A and B will not have any impact on the salt marsh habitat. Dock C will be constructed waterward of Lot 9, across a very small section of salt marsh grass. It also will be elevated four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, and will be constructed using the same minimally-impactful technique, to avoid and minimize impacts to the marsh. Because Dock C will have only de minimis impacts on the salt marsh, no mitigation has been required. The Consolidated Authorization contains conditions requiring Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibiting Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have only minimal impacts on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring maintenance of a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel, with the motor in the down position, and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Additionally, the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds is prohibited. These conditions will help protect benthic habitat at the Project site. The Florida Manatee is the only listed species that inhabits the Project site. Video evidence presented by the City showed manatees present at, and in the vicinity of, the Project site. The Project is located in an area designated, in the most recent Duval County Manatee Protection Plan (November 2017) ("MPP"), as "preferred" for boat facility siting. Boating facilities located in designated "preferred" areas generally do not have any limits on the number of slips at the facility. "Preferred" boat facility siting areas were designated in the MPP based on many factors, including manatee abundance, presence of manatee feeding habitat, proximity to boating destinations, manatee mortality in the area, existing boating slip numbers and locations, boating facility type and number, and existence of speed zones. To protect manatees in the Back Channel, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") has, by rule, established a slow speed, minimum wake zone extending 300 feet from the shorelines into the Back Channel. A slow speed, minimum wake zone means that a vessel must be fully off-plane and completely settled into the water, proceeding at a speed which is reasonable and prudent under the prevailing circumstances so as to avoid the creation of an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other persons using the waterway.11/ Fla. Admin. Code R. 68C-22.02(4). The existence and enforcement of this speed zone will help protect manatees in the Back Channel. Conditions also have been included in the Consolidated Authorization to help protect manatees from impacts from the Project. As previously discussed, for each vessel, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water, must be maintained. This condition will help ensure that manatees do not become trapped under or crushed by a vessel while moored in the Lease area. Additionally, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between moored vessels and between the docks/mooring piles and vessels, to help prevent trapping or crushing of manatees. The Consolidated Authorization also requires the Project to be constructed and operated in accordance with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work. These conditions include: instructing all personnel, including construction personnel, about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees, as well as about civil and criminal penalties imposed for harming, harassing, or killing manatees; operating all vessels associated with construction of the Project at "idle speed/no wake" at all times in the vicinity of the Project and where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom; the requirement that all in-water operations, including vessels, must shut down if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operation and cannot resume until the manatee either moves beyond the 50-foot radius of the operation or 30 minutes has elapsed and the manatee has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation; the installation of specified temporary signage; and the installation of specified permanent signage. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or listed species and their habitats. Water Quality Impacts As previously noted, the St. Johns River, including the Back Channel, is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300 apply to the Back Channel. The Back Channel portion of the St. Johns River has been identified as impaired for lead, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-303. The credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project, if constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization along with additional conditions discussed below, will not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Specifically, the Project will be required to install and maintain turbidity barriers during the construction phase to help ensure that any sediment disturbed during construction does not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Additionally, as discussed above, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of each vessel, with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. This will help prevent the suspension of sediments, and any constituents in those sediments, from being suspended in the water column and causing or contributing to water quality violations, as a result of the Project. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the storage or stockpiling of tools, equipment, materials, such as lumber, pilings, riprap, and debris within wetlands or other waters of the state; prohibits the discharge of construction debris into waters of the state; prohibits the overboard discharge of trash, human or animal waste and fuel at the docks; and requires all work to be done in periods of average or low water, so that impacts to submerged resources, including bottom sediment, can be avoided. Collectively, these conditions help provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project, including the mooring and operation of vessels in the Lease area, will not violate water quality standards. White testified that, generally, the water quality in, and in the vicinity, of marinas degrades over time due to the discharge of oils, greases, and other waste; and the suspension in the water column of sediments and toxins, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals in those sediments, as a result of propeller dredging. However, Irwin testified that because the Project site is located in a tidally-influenced area, with an approximate 3.5-foot tide range over multiple tide changes per day, the Project site will be adequately flushed such that there will not be an accumulation of pollutants that may violate water quality standards. Based on Irwin's persuasive testimony, it is determined that water quality violations will not occur due to an accumulation of pollutants at the Project site. To further ensure that the Project will not degrade water quality or violate water quality standards at the Project site, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to submit a facility management plan to address maintenance and unexpected spills of fuels and other pollutants. The facility management plan must include a spill response plan for fuel spills; a plan for maintenance of gray water collection systems and return systems, to the extent applicable; a plan addressing garbage collection and vessel cleaning systems to prevent disposal of waste in wetlands; and an education plan for all employees at the Project regarding fueling, sewage and gray water pump operations, waste management, and facility maintenance. Sewage pump-out facilities are not proposed as part of the Project. Shafnacker testified, and the Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section currently states, that domestic waste from boat heads will be handled through use of a waterless incinerating toilet (Incinolet or similar), and the remaining ash shall not be disposed of in waters of the state. However, it is noted that this requirement is not currently included as an enforceable condition. The undersigned finds that a specific condition expressly prohibiting any sewage pump-out at the docks or on vessels, requiring the use of an incinerator toilet, and prohibiting the discharged of ash waste should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate water quality standards due to the discharge of sewage into waters of the state. The Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section, states: This permit does not authorize the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; the discharge of waste into the water; liveaboards; fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations; repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into Waters of the State. Major repair, reconstruction, and/or other service must be performed at a facility approved for vessel haul-out and repair. This does not preclude the light maintenance allowed under Specific Condition 18 to be performed at the facility. This language, which expressly identifies numerous activities that are prohibited in connection with the operation of the Project, is not currently included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. The undersigned determines that in order to protect water quality at the Project site, this language must be included as a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization. As previously noted above, the Back Channel is impaired for lead. Both Irwin and Hallett testified that Workboats would not use lead paint or lead-containing welding equipment on the docks or vessels moored in the Lease area. To provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not constitute a source of lead that will contribute to the impaired status of the Back Channel, a specific condition prohibiting the use of lead-based paints and other sources of lead should be included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that, with the addition of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated as a result of construction or operation of the Project. Adverse Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Secondary impacts are impacts caused by other relevant activities very closely linked or causally related to the activity itself, rather than the direct impacts of the proposed activity itself.12/ The conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water quality. Additionally, the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, aquatic or wetland-dependent species, or listed species. As discussed above, the salt marsh habitat will not be disturbed during construction and operation of the Project, and the benthic habitat will be protected by the minimum 12-inch vessel to the top of submerged resource clearance requirement discussed above. These Project features and conditions will help ensure that there are no adverse impacts to wetland functions and to aquatic or wetland-dependent species, such as fish and benthic fauna. Additionally, the Project will be located within a slow speed, minimum wake zone, and Workboats will be required to operate all of its vessels in compliance with that standard within the 300-foot buffer along the shorelines of the Back Channel. This operational constraint, along with additional manatee protection conditions discussed above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to manatees. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that, with the addition of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not have adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Levels and Surface Water Flows As discussed above, the Project will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line, and will consist of piling-supported and floating docks and mooring piles that will not adversely impact the maintenance of minimum surface or ground water levels or surface water flows at the Project site. Impacts to Works of the District The Project is not proximate to any works of the district, as approved pursuant to section 373.086; accordingly, it will not cause adverse impacts to such works. Capable of Performing and Functioning as Designed The Project was designed by an engineer and will be installed by Shafnacker, who is an experienced marine contractor. The Consolidated Authorization requires that the Project must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and performance criteria. Within 30 days of completion of construction of the Project, Workboats must submit an as-built survey, signed and sealed by a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G17-7, depicting the boundaries of the Lease, and showing the size and dimensions of all existing overwater structures and activities within the Lease area. Additionally, the surveyor must provide a statement that all of the depicted structures and activities are located within the Lease area; or identify, and depict on an as-built survey, any structures or activities outside of the Lease area. These requirements will ensure that the Project performs and functions as designed. Financial, Legal, and Administrative Capability Rule 62-330.301(1)(j) requires an applicant for an environmental resource permit to provide reasonable assurance that the project will be conducted with a person having the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.13/ The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I (General and Environmental) ("Handbook"), section 1.5.1., which provides further guidance regarding compliance with the requirement in rule 62-330.301(1)(j), states that "[c]ompliance with this requirement must be demonstrated through subsections 62-330.060(3) and (4), the certification required in the Application Form 62-330.060(1), and section 12.0 of the Handbook." As part of the Application, Workboats submitted copies of warranty deeds for lots 6, 7, and 8, and Disclaimer No. 22146 for Lot 9. These documents establish that Shafnacker holds title to the uplands on lots 6 through 9 and to certain submerged lands waterward of Lot 9. Pursuant to Handbook section 4.2.3, these documents satisfy the "sufficient upland interest" requirement in rules 62.330.060(3) and 62- 330.301(1)(j). Rule 62-330.060(3) also requires the applicant and/or the applicant's agent to sign specific parts of the application. Here, Workboats, and Shafnacker, as Workboats' agent, signed the pertinent portions of the Application, as required by this rule. Rule 62-330.060(4) and pertinent provisions of section 12.0 of the Handbook——specifically, provisions in sections 12.1 and 12.2——require that once construction of the permitted activity is complete, it must be converted to the operational phase by submitting an as-built certification and request for conversion to operational phase. Here, the Consolidated Authorization for the Project requires submittal of this form, once construction is complete, as a condition for operation of the Project. These are the only rules and Handbook provisions regarding demonstration of financial, legal, and administrative capability that are pertinent to the Project. No other environmental resource permitting rules or Handbook provisions impose any other requirements regarding financial capability, and the City has not identified any case law or other statutes or rules imposing additional pertinent financial capability requirements. Thus, the evidence establishes that Workboats meets rule 62-330.301(1)(j) and all other pertinent rules and Handbook requirements, showing it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure the Project will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. The City did not present any evidence to show that Workboats lacks the financial, legal, and administrative capability to undertake the Project as permitted. Compliance with Rule 62-330.302 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it also must provide reasonable assurance that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.302,14/ which establishes additional standards for issuance of environmental resource permits for activities in surface waters or wetlands. Adverse Effects to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare, or Property of Others In determining whether a proposed activity in surface waters or wetlands would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others, the focus is on environmental hazards or injuries that may result from the proposed activity.15/ Thus, alleged threats to personal safety and enjoyment of neighboring property resulting from alleged unlawful activities on the upland areas of lots 6, 7, and 916/—— which are not part of the Project——are not appropriately considered as part of the public interest determination under rule 62-330.302. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions aimed at ensuring that water quality is not degraded and water quality standards are not violated due to the Project. These conditions, along with conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, provide reasonable assurance that the public health, safety and welfare, and property of others will not be adversely affected as a result of water quality degradation or violations. The Project, as designed and approved, will have 25-foot setbacks from the eastern and western riparian rights lines for lots 6 through 9. These setbacks will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not interfere with the adjoining properties' riparian rights. The City presented the testimony of O'Connor, who opined that some of Workboats' vessels, operated at full throttle, were capable of generating a wake as high as three feet. O'Connor testified that a wake of this height could damage docks along the shoreline of the Back Channel, cause shoreline erosion, and create a safety hazard for recreational boaters, kayakers, and others engaged in in-water recreational activities. As discussed above, the Back Channel is approximately 1,300 feet wide at the Project site. Per the location map provided as part of the specific purpose survey, the portion of the Back Channel east of the Project site is at least this wide for its entire length. Shafnacker testified, credibly, that his vessels typically operate closer to the Blount Island shoreline than the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so are approximately 800 feet away from the northern shoreline where the residential docks and access points for boaters, kayakers, and other recreational uses are located. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that Workboats' boats and barges would be operated at speeds such that the highest wake that any of his vessels would generate is two feet. Based on the foregoing, and with the inclusion in the Consolidated Authorization of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others. Adverse Effects to Conservation of Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and their Habitats As previously discussed, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibits Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have minimal impact on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a condition prohibiting the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds. This, along with the condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between vessel bottom and submerged resources, will help protect the benthic habitat at the Project site. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect manatees from impacts due to the Project. Specifically, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between docks or mooring piles and vessels, and between vessels, and a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. The Project also must be constructed and operated in accordance with the FWC's Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, which imposes construction and operational requirements to protect manatees for the life of the Project. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened species and their habitats. Adverse Effects to Navigation, Flow of Water, or Shoaling The Back Channel is navigable, and is over 1,300 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be located. It is used by a mix of recreational vessels and commercial and industrial vessels, although, as noted above, the low-clearance bridges on the western end of Blount Island effectively limit the commercial and industrial traffic to smaller-sized vessels. As depicted on the specific purpose survey submitted as part of the Application, the southern boundary of the Lease extends waterward approximately 196 feet from the shoreline at the eastern boundary of the Lease, and approximately 174 feet from the shoreline at the western boundary of the Lease. Thus, at its most waterward point, the preempted area of the Lease will extend waterward approximately 14 percent of the width of the Back Channel.17/ The specific purpose survey shows docks A and C extending waterward approximately 60 feet from the shoreline, and shows Dock B extending waterward approximately 45 feet from the shoreline.18/ The three three-pile dolphins, which will be used to moor the largest barges, will be set back approximately 38 feet from the southern boundary of the Lease. Shafnacker testified that barges moored at the three-pile mooring dolphins will be tied between the dolphins, by ropes at their bows and sterns, to ensure that they do not drift out of the Lease area and create a navigational hazard. The Consolidated Authorization contains a condition requiring the waterward ends of the docks and the mooring dolphins to be marked by reflectors so as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. However, at the hearing, Shafnacker testified that he intended to mark the dolphins and barges with solar battery-powered lights so that they would be more visible at night than if only reflectors are used. Based on this testimony, it is recommended that Specific Condition No. 13 in the Consolidated Authorization be modified to require the barges and mooring dolphins to be marked by lights, as well as reflectors, to make them more visible from the water. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Project, as proposed, will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel. Specifically, the Lease will not extend a significant distance out into the Back Channel; approximately 86 percent of the width of the Back Channel at the Project site remains open for navigation by the public. Additionally, the docks will be located relatively close to the shoreline, well within the Lease preempted area, and will be marked so that they are visible from the water. The mooring dolphins also will be set back a substantial distance from the Lease boundary and will be marked so as to be visible from the water. The evidence shows that the Project will not have any adverse effects on the flow of water. As discussed above, the Project will not impede, impound, or otherwise affect the flow of water. The evidence also shows that the Project will not cause harmful shoaling or erosion. No dredging or placement of dredged spoil is proposed or authorized as part of the project, and the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to use silt fencing and other specified best management practices to stabilize the sediment and prevent erosion and shoaling during construction of the Project. For these reasons, it is determined that the Project will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel, will not adversely affect the flow of water, and will not result in harmful shoaling or erosion. Adverse Effects to Fishing, Recreational Values, or Marine Productivity The Back Channel is a meander of the St. Johns River that no longer is used as the main navigational channel for the river. Thus, it is relatively calm and is extensively used for boating, kayaking, swimming, fishing, jet skiing, and other in- water recreational activities. The evidence establishes that the Project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity. The salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of the Project, which serves as the base of the estuarine food chain and as a nursery and refuge for small fish, will not be disturbed during construction of the Project. As such, the Project will not adversely affect fish habitat or marine productivity. Additionally, because the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease and set back 25 feet from the riparian lines for the adjoining properties, it will not physically interfere with or displace fishing activities from those properties, or from any other property in the vicinity. The Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect water quality during construction and operation of the Project. These conditions, and the additional conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, will protect water quality, and therefore help protect fish habitat and marine productivity. The credible evidence establishes that vessel operation associated with the Project will not adversely affect boating, kayaking, fishing, or other recreational activities in the vicinity. As discussed above, the Project is located in a slow speed, minimum wake zone that extends 300 feet from the shoreline into the Back Channel, and all vessels traversing into and out of the Lease area must operate at this speed until they are beyond 300 feet from the shorelines. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that once out of the 300-foot slow speed, minimum wake zone, the vessels will operate at speeds such that they will generate a wake of two feet, at most. The evidence showed that wakes of this height are not anticipated to adversely affect recreational activities in the Back Channel. Temporary or Permanent Activity The Project will be permanent. However, the evidence establishes that there are numerous permanent docking facilities along the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so the Project is not unique in that regard. Adverse Impacts to Significant Historical or Archaeological Resources The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any adverse impacts to such resources. As a precaution, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring Workboats to immediately cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance and to contact DHR if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, project points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlements are encountered at any time within the Project site. Accordingly, it is determined that the Project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The salt marsh wetlands in the vicinity of the Project are healthy, high-functioning, and part of a "living shoreline" that will not be disturbed by construction or operation of the Project. Although Dock C will be constructed across a very small patch of salt marsh, it will be elevated to reduce shading and will be constructed using minimally-impactful construction techniques. Any impacts to the salt marsh from the Project will be de minimis. The Project is also not anticipated to adversely affect the condition and relative value of the benthic habitat on the Project site. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization imposes a minimum 12-inch clearance from vessel bottom to top of submerged resources requirement, which will help prevent physical impact to, and propeller dredging of, the benthic habitat at the Project site. Conditions in the Consolidated Authorization, as well as the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, also will help protect the current condition and relative value of the salt marsh and benthic habitat on the Project site. Unacceptable Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters With the conditions currently contained in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, the Project is not anticipated to have adverse water quality impacts. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, protected species, and their habitat. Therefore, with the inclusion of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Project will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts, in violation of rule 62- 330.302(1)(b). Past Violations of Water and Wetlands Statutes and Rules The City presented evidence consisting of videos and photographs taken from the Wood residence immediately east of Lot 9. These videos and photographs show a variety of activities that are potentially damaging to surface waters and wetlands, including dumping sediment into surface waters from a moored vessel; earthmoving; moving floating docks onto, and off of, the shoreline using heavy equipment; operating heavy equipment in wetlands and surface waters along the shoreline; and mooring boats in extremely shallow water. Wood testified, credibly, that he contacted DEP numerous times, and that DEP occasionally visited Shafnacker's property——typically days after Wood had contacted the agency. Upon inspecting the Workboats site, DEP determined that barges or other equipment or materials had been dragged onto the shoreline without proper authorization, and DEP issued a compliance assistance offer letter to address this noncompliance. DEP ultimately determined that, rather than taking enforcement action for this noncompliance, a salt marsh restoration corrective action requirement should be included in the Consolidated Authorization. The corrective action conditions require Workboats to submit a salt marsh restoration plan and impose restoration plan completion timeframes, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Given Workboats' noncompliance history, the undersigned determines that in order to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate environmental resource permitting statutes and rules, the conditions addressed above in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, must be included as enforceable conditions in the Consolidated Authorization. Compliance with Chapter 18-21 for Issuance of the Lease For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the Lease, it must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it will meet the applicable requirements and standards codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 for issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands lease. Water Dependent Activities Rule 18-21.004(1)(g) requires activities on sovereignty submerged lands to be limited to those that are water dependent. A "water dependent activity" is one that can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.003(71). The Project's proposed docks, mooring piles, mooring dolphins, and vessel mooring operations are water dependent activities. The Project's primary purpose is the water dependent activity of mooring vessels and the ancillary activity of loading vessels with supplies as part of Workboats' operation. Case law interpreting Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 holds that because the primary purpose of docks and other mooring structures is to moor vessels, they are "water dependent" activities for purposes of rule 18-21.004(1)(g).19/ As discussed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, a condition should be included in the environmental resource permit and Lease specifically prohibiting any major repair, reconstruction, or maintenance activities within the Lease area, in order to ensure that only water dependent activities are conducted within the Lease area. Resource Management Requirements Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) requires sovereignty submerged lands to be managed primarily for the maintenance of natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Additionally, the rule authorizes compatible secondary uses that will not detract from or interfere with these primary purposes. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the Project, as proposed and conditioned in the Consolidated Authorization, will not adversely affect salt marsh or benthic habitat, will not degrade water quality or cause or contribute to water quality violations, and will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, listed species, and marine productivity. Accordingly, the Project will not detract from, or interfere, with fish and wildlife propagation. The evidence also establishes that the Project will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses. As discussed above, the Back Channel is wide enough to accommodate vessels traveling to and from the Project site without detracting from or interfering with recreational activities conducted in the Back Channel. Additionally, vessels traveling to and from the Project site must be operated in accordance with the slow speed, minimum wake zone within the 300-foot shoreline buffer, and will be operated at speeds that will generate a maximum two-foot wake outside of the shoreline buffer. The evidence shows that these speeds will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses in the Back Channel. The Project also has been designed, and will be operated, to minimize or eliminate wetland vegetation impacts and impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and cultural resources. Specifically, as discussed above, impacts to the salt marsh habitat have been minimized through the use of minimally- impactful construction techniques and elevating docks four feet above the marsh to reduce shading of the marsh grasses. Additionally, the 12-inch minimum vessel/submerged resource clearance condition will reduce impacts to the benthic habitat in the Lease area. As discussed above, DHR did not provide comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any impacts to such resources. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition establishing protocol for Workboats to follow if any specified artifacts are encountered at any time within the Project site. Rule 18-21.004(7)(e) requires that construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity not adversely affect any species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in FWC rules. As discussed above, the Florida Manatee is the only listed species determined to be present the Project site. The Project site is located within an established slow speed, minimum wake zone, and vessels entering and leaving the Project site must comply with this speed limitation within the 300-foot shoreline buffer area. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization includes several conditions designed to reduce and minimize potential impacts to manatees that may enter the Lease area. Collectively, these requirements and conditions will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect manatees. Riparian Rights As part of the Application, Workboats submitted deeds and Disclaimer No. 22146, demonstrating that Shafnacker holds title to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. These documents constitute "satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest," as that term is defined in rule 18.21.003(60). Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Project is proposed to be constructed in the riparian area appurtenant to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, and all structures that are part of the Project will be set back at least 25 feet from the eastern and western riparian lines for the upland property. No evidence was presented showing that the construction or operation of the Project would unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners, in violation of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). It is determined that the Project will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners, so meets the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 102 through 107, above, it is determined that the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard, in violation of rule 18- 21.004(7)(g). However, the inclusion of a condition requiring lighting of the mooring dolphins, discussed in paragraph 106, is recommended to ensure the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard. Lease Fees As part of the Application, Workboats submitted a financial affidavit attesting to its ability to pay the required fees for the Lease, imposed pursuant to rules 18-21.008 and 18-21.011. Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004 establishes the sovereignty submerged lands management policies, standards, and criteria to be used in determining whether to approve activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The term "public interest" is defined to mean "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of the proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(51). To meet the "not contrary to the public interest" standard in rule 18-21.004(1)(a), it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998). Here, the City asserts that the Lease is contrary to the public interest because it will cause adverse impacts to benthic and salt marsh habitat; discharge pollutants into the waters of the Back Channel; harm manatees; pose a navigational hazard; and detract from, and interfere with, recreational activities in the Back Channel. However, as discussed above, the evidence shows that the Project has been designed specifically to minimize many of these impacts, and the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions specifically aimed at preventing many of these alleged impacts. As discussed above, other conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, 70, 106, and 138, also should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to ensure that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to habitat resources, water quality, manatees, and navigation. Case law interpreting the public interest test in rule in 18-21.004(1)(a) applicable to proprietary approvals holds that when proposed structures or activities meet the applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21, those structures or activities are presumed to be not contrary to the public interest. See Spinrad v. Guerro and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-2254 (Fla. DOAH July 25, 2014), modified in part, Case No. 13-0858 (Fla. DEP Sept. 8, 2014); Haskett v. Rosati and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0465 (Fla. DOAH July 31, 2013), modified in part, Case No. 13-0040 (Fla. DEP Oct. 29, 2013). Here, Workboats has demonstrated that the Project meets all applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21; thus, the Project is presumed to be not contrary to the public interest under rule 18-21.004(1)(a).20/ The City did not present persuasive evidence showing that, on balance, the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the Project exceed the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits accruing to the public.21/ Accordingly, it is determined that the Project meets the public interest test in rule 18- 21.004(1)(a). Entitlement to Environmental Resource Permit Workboats met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit by entering into evidence the Application, Notice of Intent, Consolidated Authorization, and supporting information. Workboats also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet its burden to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the environmental resource permit. The burden then shifted to the City to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Project does not comply with sections 373.413 and 373.414 and applicable environmental resource permitting rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that the City did not meet its burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined that, with the inclusion of conditions in the Consolidated Authorization addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, and 106, above, Workboats meets all applicable requirements for issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project. Entitlement to Lease As discussed above, Workboats bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Workboats met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the Lease for the Project. The City's Standing As previously noted, the City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. On or about July 26, 2018, the Council of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, adopted Resolution 2018-499-A, finding that issuance of the environmental resource permit and Lease affects the substantial interests of a significant number of residents in Duval County. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Petition with DEP on August 17, 2018, alleging that the Project will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft amended Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as modified to include the conditions addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, 106, and 137, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 1st day of March, 2019.
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
