The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
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 in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for the redevelopment of property owned by G5 Properties, LLC (G5).
Findings Of Fact The property owned by G5 east of U.S. 41 and south of Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Myers was developed as separate parcels by different owners in the 1970’s and 1980’s under the stormwater management regulations in effect at that time. Similarly, the Duke’s property to the south was developed in that era under the same stormwater management regulations. The properties do not meet current ERP regulations. G5 acquired the two parcels comprising its property with the intention of redeveloping it, primarily by constructing a two-story medical office building on what was the southern parcel. G5 applied to upgrade the surface water management system on the property, primarily by installing a detention pond on the southern parcel and directing surface water flow from a designated sub-basin on the southern parcel into the detention pond. The detention pond was to serve the dual purposes of storage and water quality treatment. It was properly sized to store and treat the runoff from the sub-basin in a 25-year/3-day (the proper design) storm. Discharge from the detention pond was to be into the existing stormwater conveyance (an underground pipe) in the road right-of-way along the eastern property line (west of Austin Street). From there, water flows south into a drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property. From there, water flows west to Whiskey Creek and eventually into the Caloosahatchee River. (The River is impaired; neither the Creek nor the River are designated as Outstanding Florida Water). Although most of the redevelopment of G5’s medical office building is on what was the southern parcel, and most of the stormwater falling on the southern parcel is directed into the detention pond, there is a covered portico entrance on the north side of the medical office building with a driveway that ramps up to the entrance from the west and ramps down away from the entrance to the east. The covered portico and ramped driveway extend onto what was the northern parcel. Some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the west into the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment; some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the east and north, onto what was the northern parcel of G5’s property. Except for this runoff flow from the driveway, the drainage patterns on the northern parcel remain practically the same, the only differences being the replacement of a small amount of impervious surface with new impervious surface (pavement) and a small amount of impervious surface with pervious surface. G5’s redevelopment of its medical office building includes a driveway along the south side of the building, just north of the Duke’s property, leading to parking on the south and east side of the building. Some of the surface water runoff from the entrance to the driveway flows to the west into the DOT swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment. G5’s ERP does not provide for any storage or water quality treatment for runoff from the northern parcel, except for the addition of removable (for cleaning) filter inserts for the storm drains in that part of the property. During the application process, G5 modified its proposal to deepen the detention pond. This was done to allow the redeveloper of the Taco Bell half a mile to the south of the Duke’s property to take credit for additional storage and water quality treatment in order to get a Lee County permit for its project. The Taco Bell also was developed under the old stormwater management regulations, but its redevelopment was able to use a SFWMD “No Notice General Permit” because it impacted no wetlands, was less than ten acres, and had less than two acres of impervious surface. However, it needed a Lee County stormwater permit, which it could not get without additional water quality storage and treatment. Lee County allowed the Taco Bell redevelopment project to take credit for an increase in the depth of the detention pond at the G5 site and issued its permit. Although Taco Bell got credit for water quality storage and treatment at the G5 property, no surface water runoff from the Taco Bell site actually reaches G5’s detention pond, or even the Duke’s property. It flows north through the pipe along Austin Street to the drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property, and from there to Whiskey Creek and the Caloosahatchee River. However, the deeper detention pond would provide additional storage and water quality treatment for the G5 site for storms bigger than the design storm. Petitioner’s surveyor testified that there are up to four places along the property line between the G5 property and the Duke’s property where topography indicates that some surface water runoff can flow from the G5 property across the property line to the Duke’s property, post-redevelopment. His testimony was based on a comparison of spot elevations he took in the vicinity of the property line with elevations taken by other surveyors. In addition, the surveyor could not say how much flow would occur in a 25-year, 3-day storm. There was persuasive testimony from G5’s engineer that the flow from one of the four locations identified by Petitioner’s surveyor (in the southeast corner of the southern parcel of G5’s property) existed pre-redevelopment. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, this testimony actually did not contradict other testimony of the engineer that all runoff from the new pavement on the southern parcel of the G5 property was intended to flow into the new detention pond. In that location in the southeast corner, G5’s redevelopment project removed pavement, added 4-inch high curbing along the edge of the new pavement, and added grass between the curb and the property line (which would tend to reduce runoff onto the Duke’s property). Another location identified by Petitioner’s surveyor was between the new office building and the property line. The surveyor related a water stain on the pavement and an exposed tree root ball to significant standing water and high flow conditions. Petitioner contends that this occurs because an asphalt overlay, four-tenths of a foot thick, was placed on top of the existing pavement in that area. To the contrary, G5’s engineer testified that the surface water management system functions as it should and that the overlay did not change the grade but was “just to benefit the existing asphalt from deteriorating any more.” The water stain could be attributable at least in part to landscape irrigation, and the tree root may have been exposed mechanically. Even if the surveyor’s testimony proved that there is some water flow in that area, he could not testify as to the quantity of flow. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that its surface water management system functions properly and that post-redevelopment runoff from the G5 property onto the Duke’s property does not exceed pre- redevelopment conditions. Petitioner cites significant standing water on the Duke’s property after a heavy rain on January 26, 2011, as proof that the G5 redevelopment has caused flooding of the Duke’s property. However, there was no standing water on the G5 property, and hardly any water in the detention pond. The standing water on Petitioner’s property was above two storm drains on the western part of the Duke’s property, which drain into the same pipe as the storm drains on the western side of the G5 property and the outfall structure discharging from the detention pond on the G5 property. The standing water on the Duke’s property probably was caused by clogs in the drains in the Duke’s stormwater management system, not by G5’s redevelopment. Mr. Harrow claimed that the Duke’s property was inspected when purchased, its stormwater management system was functioning properly, and it was properly maintained. But he also testified that maintenance ceased at some point and that it would require an engineer to correct what is wrong with it now, which Mr. Harrow believed to be cost-prohibitive and the responsibility of G5, not Petitioner. Petitioner contends that no ERP should issue for G5’s redevelopment project without the participation of Taco Bell in the operation and maintenance of the G5 detention pond. To the contrary, the Taco Bell permit might be deficient if Taco Bell has no control over the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond, but there is no reason why Taco Bell has to participate in the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond. By a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that it has the legal and financial ability to operate and maintain its system, including the detention pond. If a new development, G5’s redevelopment project (which includes all 3.41 acres in the northern and southern parcels of the G5 property) would not meet the criteria for issuance of an ERP because there was no demonstration that there is enough water quality storage and treatment. However, because of the addition of water quality storage and treatment for the southern parcel and the addition of filters for the drains on the property, the redevelopment of the site resulted in a net improvement in water quality storage and treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny G5 an ERP for its redevelopment for failure to meet BOR requirements as to water quality storage and treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret M. Craig, Esquire Bricklemyer Smolker & Bolves, P.A. 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, 2nd Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Law Office of Matthew D. Uhle, LLC 1617 Hendry Street, Suite 411 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-2926 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Sr., Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Tommy B. Strowd, Interim Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
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.
The Issue Whether the application of Respondents Linda J. and Shirley Ann Brooks for a dredge and fill permit at property located in Levy County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and PL 92-500. At the hearing, the applicants presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted four exhibits in evidence. Petitioners presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation called two witnesses and submitted ten exhibits in evidence. Petitioners and Respondents (applicants) have submitted posthearing final argument which include proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.
Findings Of Fact On January 30, 1984, a Joint Application of the Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation was filed by Shirley Ann Brooks and Linda J. Brooks to construct an 8 foot by 25 foot deck to a proposed addition to a one-bedroom residential building on their water front property on Jackson Island which is located within the city limits of Cedar Key, Florida. The existing house had a deck over the intertidal zone and a dock extending out from the deck approximately 44 feet. The applicants' father, Bernard T. Brooks, Jr., had sought building permits from the local zoning officials of Cedar Key in 1983, which brought the project to the attention of Petitioners Grover S. and Pearl J. Book and Richard M. and Lola Roppel who own property across from but inland of the applicants' lot. They attended the local zoning hearings involving the project. Roppel also observed the applicants' contractor, Floyd Taylor, cutting vegetation and piling it on Roppel's adjacent leasehold area. Complaints from Roppel to DER prompted one of the agency's environmental specialists, Gene Medley, to meet with Bernard Brooks and Taylor in January 1984 concerning the need for permits and to designate the departmental line of jurisdiction based on its regulatory vegetative index. He determined that the line of jurisdiction was at a point five feet landward of the waterward end of the existing deck and made it known to Brooks that the proposed project would require a departmental permit. The water classification of the project area is Class III. (Testimony of B. Brooks, Medley, Taylor, Roppel, DER Exhibits 1, 7, Respondent's Exhibit 2) In February 1984, the applicants obtained the local building permits and the contractor cleared the land and commenced construction. Medley visited the site on March 26, 1984, to inspect the project and prepare a permit application appraisal. He found that construction had already begun on the house and that one piling had been placed for the proposed new deck which was located about ten to fifteen feet beyond the existing old deck. Medley told the contractor to stop construction since a permit had not been issued. Although Taylor, the contractor, agreed to the request, when Medley visited the property again on April 23, he observed that a concrete retaining wall had been constructed. In addition, sand fill material in an indeterminate amount had been placed on the project site. Prior to this visit, Medley had recommended that the project be disapproved in that the construction of a deck over the existing intertidal marsh vegetation would reduce primary productivity by the limitation of light available for photosynthesis. He had found that the vegetation inhabitating the intertidal zone at the project site consisted of a fifteen to twenty foot band of spartina alterniflora and sparse numbers of black mangrove and black rush at the landward edge of the spartina. Above the spartina, he had observed a ten to fifteen foot band of sea purslane forming a dense ground cover. Such vegetation along the shoreline served several ecological functions by stabilizing the land to prevent erosion and providing an energy source in the estuarine food web, plus a habitat for aquatic and semiaquatic organisms. Medley had further found that water quality would be adversely impacted by the construction of the deck since the plants and organic sediments trapped by the plants assimilate and filter pollutants from upland runoff as well as pollutants found in the water column. This recommendation was adopted by the Department which issued an Intent to Deny notice to the applicant on April 12, 1984. The Department of Natural Resources expressed no objection to the project in its letter of March 13, 1984. However, a representative of the Corps of Engineers visited the site on April 10, 1984, and found that a retaining wall and fill material had been placed below the mean high waterline to an extent of approximately 6 to 8 feet, and that pilings had been placed inside the wall. The contractor was informed that this was a violation of pertinent law and that all work should be stopped. Thereafter, by letter of April 17, 1984, the Corps of Engineers issued a Cease and Desist Order to the applicants to preclude them from further activity involving the placement of a building and fill material in a wetland as well as navigable waters. The applicants! permit application was returned by the Corps of Engineers with the statement that it would not be processed until the enforcement matter had been resolved. On April 30, 1984, representatives of DER and the Corps of Engineers met with Mr. Brooks and the contractor. The applicant agreed to remove the retaining wall and all fill material, and grade the area to the adjacent wetland elevation. The retaining wall was thereafter moved and the sand fill placed in the upland area. A small amount of the footing of the wall was not removed. The wall was reconstructed at a point some 5 feet landward from its original position. Although the building overhang is within the jurisdiction of DER, it does not impact significantly on the vegetation in that sufficient light is available to permit photosynthesis. In the opinion of DER experts, the project will eliminate some 75 square feet of transitional vegetation, but this loss will not degrade water quality or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Petitioner Roppel is of the opinion that the shaded area is considerably more extensive than that calculated by Departmental personnel, but the latter's estimate and conclusions are accepted as more persuasive in the light of all the circumstances. Petitioner Roppel also submitted photographs showing that fill material had been removed from the project site and claimed that it had migrated into the adjacent waters to such an extent as to affect water depth at his nearby dock. Although it is evident that some unstabilized fill material was washed into the water, there was insufficient evidence provided as to the extent of the erosion or as to any impact it might have had on water quality or marine resources. At the time of hearing, the area in front of the new wall had revegetated to some extent. Petitioners' expert, Dr. Howard T. Odum, is a recognized authority on the subject of wetlands ecology. However, his brief visit to the site on the day before the hearing resulted only in an opinion that shading had done "some impacting," but he was unable to state if the project violated state water quality standards. Although his opinion as to the cumulative adverse impacts of small projects on marine life is undoubtedly correct, insufficient evidence was presented as to the extent of such impacts at the project area to warrant a finding in this regard concerning the instant project. (Testimony of B. Brooks, Taylor, Medley, Melberg, Roppel, Odum, Tyler, DER Exhibits 2, 4-5, 7-10, Respondents' Exhibits 3-4, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-5) As a result of the applicants' revision of its application on May 1, 1984, which eliminated the concept of a new deck and left only a 3 foot by 25 foot portion of the new residential building within state waters, DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit/water quality certification for the revised project on May 18, 1984. The notice reflected that the part of the new addition to be waterward of the apparent mean high waterline would be supported by three pilings and result in covering by the structure of approximately 75 square feet of sparse marsh vegetation. The notice further stated that although such shading would impact the vegetation, it would not eliminate it or its function of maintaining water quality by its assimilative capacity. The notice further indicated that the Department was satisfied that reasonable assurances had been provided that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity would not result in the violation of cater quality standards, or interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest, or create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. Finally, the notice indicated that the permit would be issued with conditions to provide for turbidity controls during construction and that all fill placed on uplands should be stabilized in a manner to prevent any erosion into waters of the state. On June 4, 1984, the Corps of Engineers issued its permit to the applicants for the placement of 3 support pilings and construction of a residential structure extending 4 feet waterward of the mean high waterline. (Testimony of Medley, Tyler, DER Exhibit 6, Respondent's Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact On October 2, 1978, Respondent, Paul Sage, filed an application with DER seeking a permit to construct a boat ramp adjacent to his home, which is located on Crooked Lake in southeastern Polk County. Crooked Lake is a 5,538 acre meandered navigable freshwater lake. Approximately 25 percent of the shoreline of Crooked Lake has been developed into residential areas, and the remainder of the shoreline is grove and pastureland. Water levels in the lake have fluctuated considerably over the past decade. The parties have conceded for the Purpose of this proceeding that the mean high waterline of Crooked Lake is located at 120.4 feet mean sea level. Due to the aforementioned fluctuation in water level, the actual water's edge at the time of the bearing in this cause was considerably below the mean high waterline. In fact, on May 20, 1979, the water level of Crooked Lake stood at 115.5 feet mean sea level, whereas on September 27, 1978, when the drawings attached to Respondent's application were prepared, the water level was at 116.9 feet mean sea level. In any event, it is not contested that the entire length of the proposed boat ramp for which a permit is sought in this proceeding would be below the line of mean high water, and therefore on state owned land. In his application, Respondent sought a permit to construct a 12-foot wide, 4-inch thick concrete boat ramp which would extend 186 feet waterward of the mean high water line. Respondent testified at the final hearing in this cause, however, that be wished a permit which could allow construction of a boat ramp of sufficient length to allow a water depth of 3 to 4 feet at its lakeward terminus to allow launching of water craft from a trailer. Due to fluctuating water levels, the eventual ramp length necessary could be more or less than the 186 feet requested in the permit application. In preparing his permit application, Respondent made no actual measurement to determine what the depth of the lake was 186 feet from the mean high waterline, relying instead on his own estimate. The permit application does not disclose the manner in which Respondent plans to construct the proposed ramp. No detailed engineering or construction data were submitted with the application. The application form simply reflects the Respondent's intention to place 27.3 cubic yards of fill material waterward of the mean high waterline, and 6.5 cubic yards of fill material landward of that line. Although the DER permit application appraisal indicates that the ramp is to be constructed of poured concrete, that fact is not reflected in the application. Indeed, in his testimony at the final hearing in this cause, the Respondent suggested that the ramp might be constructed of poured concrete up to the water's edge, and that preformed concrete slabs would then be utilized for the remaining length of the ramp. As indicated above, there is nothing in the application form, and nothing in the record of this proceeding, to indicate what, if any, measures will be taken during construction to insure non-violation of state water quality standards. Further, although the permit application indicates that no dredging or excavation activities will be associated with this project, the Respondent's testimony at the final hearing was to the contrary. The Respondent testified that because of the slope of the land toward the lake, and his desire to construct a level boat ramp, it would be necessary to "cut" and relocate portions of the lake bottom. The exact location of these "cuts", the volume of materials involved, and the manner by which they would be removed and/or relocated are net apparent from the record. Respondent intends to construct the proposed ramp for his own personal use. He also indicated at the final hearing that he might allow neighbors to use the ramp without charge, since the nearest public ramp is approximately ten miles distant. The ramp would not, however, be used for commercial purposes. Respondent testified that he would expect to use the proposed ramp for launching his own boats approximately three times per year. Adjoining property owners on either side of Respondent have indicated that they have no objection to the granting of the requested permit. In addition, in the permit application review process, DER solicited and received comments from the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Aquatic vegetation in the area of the proposed project consists primarily of maiden cane, torpedo grass and water pennywort. This vegetation is growing within 12 feet of the water's edge as of the date of final hearing in this cause and rings the lake's shoreline to a distance of approximately 100 feet lakeward of the present waterline. Construction of the proposed project would prevent growth of rooted aquatic vegetation on 2,232 square feet of lake bottom, although some species of plants and animals might use the concrete from which the ramp would be constructed as a substrate. However, it appears from the record that no qualitative or quantitative analysis of the impact of the proposed project on the natural resources of the area was performed by the applicant. The DER representative who performed the permit application appraisal testified at the final hearing that the 12-foot width of the proposed boat ramp comprised only one-fifth of the owner's property frontage on the lake, and therefore would constitute a minimal disturbance for purposes of giving the applicant access to the open water of the lake. However, it does not appear from the record that the DER representative considered the impact of the 186-foot length of the proposed structure in arriving at his conclusion to recommend issuance of the permit. No actual measurements were made by either the permit applicant or DER to substantiate the applicant's claim that the filling of 186 feet of state-owned bottomland is necessary to furnish reasonable access from the applicant's property to the open waters of the lake. The Petitioner is an organization, composed of either persons owning property bordering on Crooked Lake, or recreational users of that lake. As such, it appears that both Petitioner and its members would be substantially affected by proposed agency action in this cause.
Findings Of Fact In June 1984, Clark Vargas applied for a permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation for activities in the waters of the state. The application stated that the proposed activity was to construct a soil road 700 feet long and constructed of 2,000 cubic yards of fill to be deposited landward of the mean high water line. The roadway proposed was to have Geotextile Fabric placed over it, and would have fifteen inch culverts for cross flow. The purpose of the road was to allow 8 property owners to have automobile access to their lots. Attached to the application was a copy of a larger engineering drawing of the project, reduced to letter size paper. The larger drawing C in evidence as Responder's Exhibit 1, and the original application is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The drawing depicts the construction that is proposed, and in the notes states that the mean high water line is 1.1 feet above mean sea level. The drawing (Respondent's Exhibit 2) shows a number of elevation readings along the road. The elevation readings on the land upon which approximately one half of the road is to be located, the southerly portion closest to Julington Creek, and adjacent to lots 19 through 26, are all below the elevation of mean high water. The data as to the mean high water elevation for the note on the drawing was obtained by Mr. Vargas from the Corps of Engineers. The elevations on the road were the elevations measured by a survey caused to be conducted by Mr. Vargas starting from a U.S.G.S. benchmark three quarters of a mile away. The survey was conducted by a registered land surveyor. Mr. Vargas stated that the survey was not meant to be a survey to establish mean high water, and that it was intended to determine a price and plan for construction. In Mr. Vargas's professional opinion, the survey was not adequate to establish the mean high water line. Timothy J. Deuerling, an Environmental Supervisor I for the Northeast District, visited the site of the project in the summer of 1984. He saw water throughout the area. He developed the initial opinion that the project was landward of the mean high water line. When he returned to the office, he looked at the small attached drawing and decided that the project appeared to be mostly landward of the mean high water line. The elevations are very unclear on the reduced size version attached to the application. Mr. Deuerling's statement as to the mean high water line is contained in Respondent's Exhibit 4. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the drawing was so small and the elevations so unclear that Mr. Deuerling's opinion as to the mean high water line in Exhibit 4 is not reliable, and is rejected. Jeremy G. Tyler, Environmental Supervisor of the Dredge and Fill Section, North East District, said that the conclusions contained in the Intent to Deny and Final Order of Denial, Respondent's Exhibits 7 and 6, that one-third of the fill was to be placed waterward of the mean high water line, was based upon the data provided to DER by Mr. Vargas, Respondent's Exhibit 2. Mr. Tyler said that it is very hard to determine mean high water line by site inspection, and that he credited the survey as better evidence. It is she finding of the Hearing Officer that the location of the mean high water line has not been established by the evidence. This finding is not based upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas, however. Mr. Vargas did not present any evidence that the standard for mean high water, which was obtained from the Corps of Engineers, was inaccurate, and he did not present any evidence that the survey elevations on the drawing were inaccurate. There is good reason to believe that the proposed road in this case may be, at least with respect to the one half from lots 19 through 26, waterward of the mean high water line. The evidence shows there is an elevated ridge along the edge of the canal, that this ridge was caused by deposit of dredged material when the canal was dredged in the 1950's or 1960's, and that the ridge has eroded in places, and the water from the canal and Julington Creek floods much of the area from time to time through low places in the ridge. The engineering drawing, however, runs a series of elevation readings across only two places on the ridge, and in both cases there is at least one reading above mean high water level. Further, the only reading at a spot directly on the open water is at the southerly end of the proposed road, and it also is above mean high water. It is possible, therefore, that although portions of the road are below mean high water elevation, these portions may be completely surrounded by higher ground. It is also possible that the several low spots on the canal ridge bring the mean high water line to the road itself. On this record, it is not possible to conclude where the mean high water line is. The site of the proposed road and surrounding lots are located in a hardwood swamp associated with Julington Creek in Duval County. The land upon which the road would be built is heavily wooded. Julington Creek is Class III waters of the state. The land upon which the road is to be built is the landward extent of the waters of the state. All of the Petitioners stipulated at the hearing that the Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction to require a permit for fill pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The proposed project would result in the placement of silica fill upon a strip of wetlands described above measuring 25' by 702.5', which is 17,562.5 square feet, plus four driveway pads to lots measuring 25' by 30', for an additional 3900 square feet, for a total of 20,562.5 square feet, which is 0.47 of an acre. (An acre is 43,560 square feet.) The sand of the roadway and driveway pads will not pollute the waters of the state. The sand of the road will not increase biological oxygen demand or nutrients. During construction, turbidity could be increased if high waters are experienced and the area is not properly stabilized, but turbidity could be monitored and controlled. The materials of the roadway further will not depress the oxygen levels in Julington Creek. The project originally proposed that seed and fertilizer be used to stabilize the banks of the road, and fertilizer would contribute to nutrients in the waters of the state, but Petitioners at the hearing gave reasonable assurances that seeding could be accomplished without fertilizer by using burlap and seed. The roadway itself will also not generate unlawful bacteria that could make its way to the waters of the state. The road will disturb the biological integrity of the organisms living in the soil beneath the roadway and driveway pads. The proposed project will permanently destroy 0.47 of an acre of the wetlands associated with Julington Creek. These and adjacent wetlands function as a natural kidney, cleansing the water of pollutants, in a continuous cycle. Wetlands contain soil and living organisms that, in balance, filter out pollutants, assimilate nutrients, and provide habitat for organisms. The silica road proposed by Petitioners will not perform these functions. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut these findings, except to argue that the loss of wetland was insignificant and to argue that wetlands, at times, will also cause pollution. Petitioners gave no other reasonable assurances that the long-term effects of the road would not degrade water quality. The exchange of water, which results in the natural filtration and cleansing described above, occurs from waters coming from the uplands, from the wetlands, and from open waters such as Julington Creek. Julington Creek is tidal, and the testimony indicated that with significant regularity the wetlands associated with this proposed road were inundated with water. In a natural state, wetlands will experience dry conditions. During such periods, which are natural and cyclical, water will drain from the swamp and there can be a natural depression of oxygen levels in the open waters, increasing suspended solids. While these facts are true, Petitioners did not present evidence to show with particularity whether this had occurred or to what extent this had occurred with respect to the wetland area where the road is to be located, and did not show with particularity how removal of these wetlands by constructing this road would prevent natural degradation of the water in the future. Moreover, whether or not the natural filtration system of a wetland becomes less efficient due to natural cycles is not relevant in this case. Petitioners here do not propose to replace nature's cyclical inefficiencies with a better, manmade system, but propose, rather, to remove a significant portion of the only filter now operating, without replacement. The entire Julington Creek drainage basis is 30 or 40 square miles. The relevance of this figure was not established, since from the map which is Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is clear that the drainage basis of Julington Creek, with its associated wetlands, serves to filter pollutants from an equally large, if not larger, upland area. Petitioners argue that removal of 0.47 acre is insignificant if the entire area is 30 to 40 square miles, but from Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is evident that much of that other part of the wetland is not available to function as a filter for the waters currently filtered by the wetlands in the vicinity of the pro- posed roadway. The proposed road is near the conjunction of Julington and Durbin Creeks, and near the place where the open waters enlarge. The wetlands of the proposed road would be expected to serve the filtration function for those open waters and the uplands immediately above the wetlands, and not some other part of the 30 or 40 square miles. The land at the headwaters of Julington Creek is now being developed for multifamily housing and industrial uses, and the whole watershed of the Creek is being developed. The waters of Julington Creek have already been stressed in a general way by this development. Petitioners Vargas, Mrs. M. E McCullough, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale, and Mr. Steve Scecere, all testified at the hearing, and own, respectively, lots 22, 21, 19, and 24. All testified that they intend to build houses on their lots, but have not yet applied for permits. Since 1977, the Department of Environmental Regulation has consistently taken the position that deposit of fill on the wetlands which are the landward extent of Julington Creek will degrade the quality of the waters of the state, and have consistently acted to prohibit such fill. See Respondent's Exhibits 8, 10, and 11. The Department further has consistently told prospective buyers of this position with regard to these wetlands. Of particular relevance to this application, in 1977 the Respondent denied a fill permit to place 2,500 cubic yards of fill on lot 20 as depicted on Respondent's Exhibit 1. This lot is now owned by Debra H. Prevatt, and is contiguous to lot 19 owned by Petitioner, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale. The fill proposed in 1977 would have eliminated 20,000 square feet of wetlands, approximately the same as the proposed project in this case. Petitioner proposes the finding that the Corps of Engineers stands ready to issue their permit pending resolution of their application by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This finding is based solely upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas as to the intentions of unnamed officials in the Corps of Engineers, and as such, is hearsay. Therefore, absent direct evidence on the point, the proposed finding is rejected. Petitioners propose a finding that the permitting process progressed "without negative feedback" until objections were raised by adjacent property owners. This finding was not supported by any evidence other than the opinion of Mr. Vargas, and will be rejected as unsupported and possibly hearsay. It is also rejected as irrelevant since there was no evidence that the Respondent denied the permit for reasons other than those provided by statute and regulation. The Petitioners have paid taxes on their property, are of the opinion that they cannot build on their land if the permit is denied, and would be willing to sell their land to the state for a reasonable amount if the permit is denied. Respondent has not placed a monetary value on the wetlands which Petitioners propose to fill. If Petitioners proposed to build the road on pilings, elevated above the wetlands so that most of the wetlands would continue to function, the application would be approved.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the application for a dredge and fill permit to construct the road and driveway pads as proposed by Petitioners be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 1st day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark Vargas, P.E. President C. Vargas & Associates 8596 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 M. E McCullough 9139 Warwickshire Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Steve Scecere 9058 Kentism Court Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Dr. Robert L. Barksdale 2423 Acadie Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Ross Burnaman, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinke, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Harper Brothers, Inc., operates a farming and limestone mining operation in Lee County, Florida. It has filed a surface water management permit application for a project to be operated as an adjunct to the mining operation at Green Meadows Mine owned by Harper Brothers. The Respondent Harper Brothers retained consultants in the general fields of engineering, hydrology, surface water management and hydraulics to assist in the formulation of a surface water management plan for the development and operation of their mining site. As a culmination of this effort, Respondent Harper Brothers filed its application for a surface water management system, and permit therefor, with the district. The SFWMD (District), upon receiving applications for surface water management systems and related permits evaluates water quantity, quality and various environmental concerns related to water resources mandated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Such an application must meet district criteria contained in the statutes and rules in order for the surface water management permit to be issued. The district's staff makes a recommendation to its governing board for approval or denial of such permits, and often with related conditions attached. In the instant case, after review of the various water quality and environmental criteria, the recommendation of the governing board of the agency was for approval of the permit with certain conditions. THE PROJECT The project which is the subject matter of this proceeding is a rock mining operation for the mining of limestone in Lee County, Florida. The application is for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 405-acre mining operation which, in essence, involves the management of the water produced by "de-watering," or pumping-out of the active rock pit, through use of a retention area, dykes, pumps, culverts and a weir structure; with a view toward keeping the water pumped from the pit (dewatering water), and stormwaters which fall on the site, contained in a retention area which has been designed to retain all the dewatering discharge. The only water discharge envisioned off the site represents the volume of stormwater which falls thereon. The stormwater which would be discharged off the site is that water which actually falls as rain onto the retention area as well as stormwater that is pumped into the retention area from the pit through the use of the two existing dewatering pumps. During excavation of the rock pit, water is discharged from the pit into the on-site retention area through use of these two pumps. An existing weir structure allows some water from the retention area to flow through a ditch to a small lake on the Respondent Harper Brothers' property. Water from the lake is used at the rock mine and some existing farmland of Harper Brothers is supplied irrigation water from it. At present, some farmland is supplied irrigation water through a pump from the retention area and some receives irrigation from the mine pit itself through another pump. The remaining water discharged from the mine pit is held in the retention area where it infiltrates into the ground. The retention area will be surrounded by 3.5-foot high by 12-foot wide dykes. Along the south side of the retention area a double dyke system is proposed. The outer dyke will also be utilized as a road and varies from three to four feet in height with a top width of 36 feet, which will be paved. Stormwater discharged from the retention area would flow through an outfall structure located at a crest elevation of 26.75 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The controlled elevation in the retention area is 26.3 feet NGVD which is maintained by a 3.83-foot wide "bleeder notch." Discharge from this structure would then be routed westward between double dykes under the Harper Brothers' "north-south road" down a swale on the north side of its entrance road to "no-name" slough, the ultimate "receiving waters." It was established by expert witness Missimer, for Respondent Harper Brothers, that the dewatering discharge which would be held in the retention area will infiltrate into the ground at a rate of approximately 43,000 gallons per day per acre per a one-foot elevation in water level. The rate of infiltration in the ground is directly proportional to the "head" increase so that for a two-foot water level with the resulting increased pressure or "head," the infiltration rate would be 86,000 gallons per day per acre. Based on the presently permitted maximum monthly withdrawal rate, at a point of equilibrium would be reached at a water depth in the retention area of 1.3 feet, whereby the rate of water pumped into the retention area equals the rate of infiltration into the ground without considering additionally any evaporation into the atmosphere. Thus, the bleeder notch would be set at the above elevation so that all dewatering discharges from the mine (which may contain rock and other sediments) are effectively retained on site. PRE-DEVELOPMENT VS. POST-DEVELOPMENT DISCHARGES The SF design criteria contained in Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, the applicability of which is not in dispute in this proceeding, provides that the volume of stormwater discharged from such a project cannot exceed the volume of such discharges from the same surface area in its pre-development condition. The development referred to in this instance is, of course, the development of the mine and the related retention area and other water management installations or "improvements." Expert witnesses Glaubitz and Serra testifying for the Respondent Harper Brothers and SFWMD established that the quantity of pre-development discharge from the subject site or surface area, was calculated based upon a "design storm event." This means that the pre-development discharge from the Harper Brothers' mine site was calculated, based upon reviews of the watershed boundary, the slope, the vegetation types, and the hydrologic length of the watershed in the geographical area, as well as through the use of aerial photography and U.S. Geological Survey maps, to show the amounts of surface and stormwaters discharged from this site, or its pre-development surface area, during a 25-year, 3-day duration storm event, meaning a storm lasting for a duration of three days of rain of a severity that has been experienced, according to meteorological records, an average of once in 25 years in the subject geographical area. Based upon these calculations of pre-development discharge rate or volume during a 25-year, 3-day storm event, the pre- development discharge from the Harper Brothers' mine site was calculated to be a volume of 10 cubic feet of water per second (cfs). "Post-development discharge" is the rate of discharge taking into account the same 25-year, 3-day storm event, which is allowed to discharge off the project site after development is completed. The calculation of post- development discharge was computed by taking into account such factors as soil storage capability, stage discharge and calculation of the amount of retention or detention of storm water required on the site. Thus, the calculated post- development discharge of stormwater from the site as it is proposed to be designed, is nine cubic feet per second during such a 25-year, 3-day severe storm, which capability is designed into the proposed project. Thus, the post- development discharge of stormwater off the project site does not exceed, and in fact is less than, the pre-development discharge of stormwater from the site. Included within the calculations by these two experts, concerning post-development volume of stormwater to be discharged, is an analysis of the quantity of water to be retained in the retention area of the proposed project. The discharge from the retention area is controlled by the above-mentioned weir and bleeder notch. The retention area proposed by the applicant is to be used both for discharge of dewatering water from the mine pit (under the previously issued industrial water permit) as well as for retention of stormwater. This weir and bleeder notch is designed to be at an elevation which only allows discharge of a volume of water representing the volume of stormwater entering the retention area over a given period of time, and not the dewatering water from the site, which may contain rock, dust in suspension, and other sediments. The previous permit granted to the applicant, as well as the permit sought in this proceeding, would require (as all parties agree) that the dewatering volume of water, representing the water pumped from the mine pit, will totally remain on the site. The project as designed is reasonably assured to be capable of retaining all such dewatering mine pit water on-site. One critical factor considered in determining the design and site for the retention area (155 acres) and in setting the bleeder notch elevation for discharge of stormwater volume, is the infiltration rate from the retention area into the ground beneath it. The Respondent Harper Brothers established (through these uncontradicted expert witnesses) that the infiltration rate is 43,000 gallons per day per acre of the retention area for a one-foot elevation of water in that retention area. One of the factors computed into the infiltration rate calculation is the "transmissivity rate." The transmissivity rate is 200,000 gallons per day per foot in the shallow or surface aquifer at the project site. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Bruns, conceded that if that rate is correct, as it was established to be, that the post-development volume of discharge leaving the project site would not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge, if the maximum pumpage rate into the retention area from the pit did not exceed 8.5 million gallons per day, and it is so found. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Petitioner presented no testimony of its own concerning infiltration rates or transmissivity rates. Neither did the Petitioner's expert Mr. Bruns make any calculations of quantity of discharge from the site in either a pre-development condition or post-development condition, nor was a water management or hydrologic study of the drainage basin (approximately 6 square miles) made by Petitioner's expert witness, to assist in analyzing quantity of discharge. Under certain hypothetical conditions it would be possible for dewatering discharge water from the mine, as a volume of water, to be discharged, commingled with stormwater discharge, from the retention area. Thomas Missimer, testifying as an expert witness in the fields of hydrology and water quality for Harper Brothers, was uncontradicted. His studies and calculatiops in evidence established that, with regard to the infiltration rate downward into the soil under the retention area, and the amount of water pumped into the retention area, that equilibrium is reached when pumping into the retention area reaches 8.5 million gallons per day. That is, approximately 8.5 million gallons per day infiltrate downward into the soil and thus leave the retention area and thus an 8.5 million gallon pumpage rate per day would result in a static water level in the retention area, aside from evaporation. If the Respondent pumped in excess of this figure, which might be possible under its present mine dewatering industrial use permit, then the pumpage figure might exceed the equilibrium figure and cause the volume of water discharged off the site to exceed that volume which only represents stormwater. Accordingly, the parties stipulated that the maximum daily pumpage rate of 8.5 million gallons per day would be included as a condition in the permit, if it were issued to the Respondent, such that, based upon the uncontradicted infiltration data, that the limitation to a maximum pumpage rate into the retention area of 8.5 million gallons per day from the mine pit, would be permissible. In view of this stipulation, Petitioner withdrew its contention that the post-development volume of discharge water leaving the site would exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. It was thus shown that at the maximum pumpage rate of 8.5 million gallons per day no mine dewatering discharge (as a volume of water) will leave the retention area. NON-ALTERATION OF HISTORICAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS The Petitioners also contend that the supposed alteration of historical drainage patterns by this development at the site will cause additional flooding to the Petitioner's access road to their property (residence and nursery) by the road known as Mallard Lane. In that connection, the historic pattern of stormwater discharge off the project site or its geographical area, is figured into the analysis of pre-development water volume discharge versus post-development discharge. This project, like others of its type, is mandated by the rules at issue to not alter the pre-development patterns of water discharge off the site area so as to adversely affect the property and landowners off the site. Although the pre-development discharge is generally observed and calculated by looking at a site before the development involved in a permit application takes place, in the instant case, Harper Brothers, Inc., by the authority of its previously issued dewatering and industrial water use permit had already initiated its mining operation and so pre-development conditions as they relate to this permit were not directly, physically observable. Accordingly, a hydrologic study of the drainage basin in which this project is located was performed, and, in conjunction with the use of aerial photography and U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps, the perimeter of the basin was determined and an analysis of the historical pattern of flow in the drainage basin was done. The general flow of water in the drainage basin historically is from northeast to southwest, with an ultimate discharge into the "no-name" slough, a "cypress head" or slough which generally flows in a westerly and southwesterly direction from the area immediately adjacent to the project site. Internally within this drainage basin, some old pre-development north/south dykes have blocked some of the westerly flow which historically existed at the site, thereby causing some of the water to flow in a northwesterly direction until it reaches the northern end of the north/south dykes, thence returning to the generally southwesterly drainage pattern, ultimately ending up in the slough system. A small area of farm fields was located north of the east/west access road to the site, and southerly of an existing east/west line of farm dykes, and may have drained in a southerly direction before development. There is currently no information and no evidence of record concerning how this farm field area was drained. The drainage from this area now, however, is insignificant and is calculated at approximately one cubic foot per second as a maximum rate. As the calculated post-development discharge from this project site is approximately 9 cubic feet per second, even if it be assumed that the drainage from the old farm field should be added to the post-development discharge rate from the project site itself, such an addition would only equal and not exceed the historic, pre-development discharge rate of ten cubic feet per second. The flows in a southerly direction are currently blocked by the east/west access road to the Harper Brothers' site, used by Harper Brothers. In a predevelopment condition however, the same situation existed since the southerly flow was similarly blocked by farm dykes which existed in the pre- development condition. The proposed facility is designed to have stormwater which falls on the entire project site to be pumped into the retention area. The volume of stormwater permitted to be discharged will discharge from the retention area via the above-mentioned outfall structure and will be routed westward through the double-dyke system down a drainage swale on the north side of the entrance road, and ultimately into the no-name slough. Thus, the historic drainage pattern of the basin from the northeast to the southwest will not be significantly altered by the project as designed and proposed. The project generally preserves this historic drainage pattern by discharging the drainage within the basin into the "no-name" slough as occurred in the pre-development condition which, when the above-described pre-development and post-development discharge rates are compared reveals that there will be no adverse alteration in terms of either a dearth of or excess of water supply to this natural slough system. The Petitioner's access road, North Mallard Lane, running from north to south, accessing Petitioner's property west of the project site, is indeed subject to inundation, but was subject to such inundation in the pre-development condition of the project site. This is because the slough crosses this access road. Since the post-development condition does not alter the historic patterns of drainage to any significant degree, and does not represent an alteration in the volume of discharge from the project site area over that in the historic, pre-development condition, no additional flooding to the Petitioner's access road will be caused as a result of the project installation and operation. The flooding being caused to the Petitioner's access road, indeed was shown to be related in part to culverts of insufficient size installed by Lee County, so that water tends to stand on the road surface as opposed to draining under and away from it. NON-ALTERATION OF THE pH OF RECEIVING WATERS It is undisputed that the subject project, like all such projects, under the permitting authority of SFWMD, must meet state water quality criteria contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The design of such a surface water management system must include "best management practices" (BMP's) in order to satisfy the district's design criteria. BMP's are techniques which are incorporated into the design of such a system to enhance water quality such as the use of swales, retention ponds, and gravity structures. Given that the project will utilize a retention area, grassed swales and other well accepted water management structures, the design was shown to comport with "best management practices." Water quality measurements for the only water quality parameter in dispute, that of pH, were taken on the project site using standard, accepted scientific methods and U.S. Geological Survey Water Quality Standard sampling techniques. The tests revealed a pH in the retention area itself of 7.91 pH units. The pH in the pit area was 7.8 pH units and in the off-site water in the slough, the pH was 7.3 units. The water discharge from the retention area would be a combination of stormwater (rain water) which is approximately 6 pH units in the geographical area involved, and the retention area water at approximately 7.8 pH units. The precise pH of this discharge water would depend on the quantities of water from each source, but was shown to be almost neutral or approximately at a pH of 7. Thus, the discharge from the retention area of the commingled dewatering and stormwater, if such occurs, will not alter the receiving waters one full pH unit. Upon issuance of the permit, the applicant will still have to comply on a continuing basis with the water quality parameters of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and the staff of SFWMD will continue water quality monitoring after the permit is issued. There has thus been no showing that commingling of dewatering water and stormwater in the retention area and the discharge of such commingled waters to the receiving waters of "no-name" slough would affect the pH of that receiving water in a manner to exceed existing, permissible pH parameters and adversely affect water quality. Expert witness Serra testifying for the district as well as for Harper Brothers, has studied similar mining operations. Such operations, utilizing similar water management procedures, have not caused any water quality violations related to discharges of commingled dewatering and stormwater, including no violations of the pH parameters. Finally, near the conclusion of the proceeding, Petitioner, in effect, abandoned its dispute regarding the issue of compliance with the pH water quality parameter.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District authorizing issuance of a surface water management permit to the applicant herein for the proposed surface water management system, imposing upon the applicants the limiting and special conditions enumerated in the district staff report depicted in Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein, and additionally, those two special conditions set forth immediately above. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of August 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 17th day of August 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: W. E. Connery Gulf Hydro-Farms, Inc. Post Office Boa 148 Estero, Florida 33928 John A. Noland, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Michael S. Tammaro, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box "V" West Palm Beach, Florida 33403-4238 John R. Maloy, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box "V" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
