The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact In September, 1985, Armand J. Houle purchased an 80 acre tract located eight miles east of the Naples toll booth on State Road 84 and approximately two miles north of Alligator Alley. The purpose of buying the property was to mine the limestone rock thereon, through a borrow pit, for the purpose of selling it as road base to the State of Florida Department of Transportation for use in the construction of 1-75 (Alligator Alley extending from Naples to the Florida east coast). While no contract has existed or currently exists, correspondence between the Department of Transportation and counsel for the Petitioner indicates that approximately 800,000 cubic yards of fill will be required in the immediate area and that Petitioner's proposed borrow pit would be the ideal source of this rock. Prior to making the purchase, Mr. Houle's associate, Raymond Chester, contacted both the Department of Transportation concerning the potential use of the rock and representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The response he received from these agencies led him to, believe that a borrow pit might well be permitted and the effort should be pursued. After Mr. Chester and Mr. Houle became partners in the property, they contacted county officials and received zoning and other local permits for the facility. It was only after this, when DER was approached again that the applicants were advised a permit would not be issued. Mr. Houle agrees that, if the permits as requested were granted, he would accept a prohibition against further development of the property after removal of the rock and fill, would allow access to the restored lakes to the public for fishing and recreation; would agree to an appropriate restoration plan for the site; and would ensure compliance with the restoration plan stipulated by the Department. After the property was purchased in late 1985, Mr. Houle approached Daniel W. Brundage, the vice-president of an engineering firm in Naples, with a view toward developing the property in question as a borrow pit. Plans were developed for application for permits with the County and Mr. Brundage, consistent therewith, visited the site on several occasions. He found some vegetation off from the site which could be related to wetlands and contacted a representative of DER with whom he went to the site to look it over. This agency representative, Mr. Beever, concluded that the property was a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Brundage nonetheless felt confident enough to begin work with the County to secure a permit to convert this land, classified as agricultural, to mining property. Consistent with his efforts, the request for conversion went through a four step process on the way to the County Commission which included approval by (1) the Water Management Advisory Board, (2) the Environmental Advisory Council which recommended same changes accepted by the Petitioner, (3) the Subdivision Review Committee, and (4) the Coastal Area Planning Council. All four subagencies recommended approval and thereafter the County granted its permit for work to begin. Assuming all permits are issued, the property will be developed in two stages. In stage one the site will be cleared of vegetation, and the top soil on Phase I, the western 40 acre parcel, removed and used to construct a berm around the entire perimeter of the site as well as between the two 40 acre parcels. The berm will be entirely within property boundaries and used to isolate any water removed from the active phase within the site so that it does not flow onto adjoining property. The eastern 40 acre tract, (Stage II) will be used for water storage during the excavation of Stage 1. It is anticipated that no water will leave the site during construction of either stage with the exception of extraordinary waterfall during rainfall or hurricane. Before any water is discharged, it will go into a storage configuration so that any sediment therein would settle to the bottom before discharge. The discharged water will be filtered through hay bales or filter screens to avoid any turbidity in the surrounding water. The design of this holding capacity in the filter system is sufficient to accommodate the water of a 25 year storm. As Stage I is completed, Stage II will be opened, and the ground water from Stage II pumped back to Stage I for storage. A similar storage and filtration system will be utilized around Stage I. Primary access to the property will be along the western boundary of 8 Mile Canal, but if this is not allowed, Petitioner proposes to build a single span bridge across the 8 Mile Canal at 40th Street to allow access to the property. After the lime rock has been excavated, the berm will be removed and the side of the property graded to form the banks of a 56 acre lake for recreational purposes. The edge of the lake will be a meandering slope at a ratio of 10:1 which will be assured by survey to be in compliance with the County plan. The lake, which will have a maximum depth of 20 feet, will be excavated at a depth ratio of 2:1 from the edge of the slope to the bottom of the lake. During excavation and prior to restoration, heavy equipment will be used for the removal of the rock such as drag lines, back hoes, motor graders, and bulldozers and an area within the boundaries of the site will be isolated and set up for fueling and maintenance. It will be floored with a membrane to prohibit oil and fuel from getting into the ground as a result of accidental spills. Storage tanks for fuel and oil will be above ground and available for immediate inspection. Waste facilities will be in the form of porta-potties and any water falling in this maintenance area will be drained to a low sump within the membraned area for storage until evaporation or safe removal. In the event of a heavy rainfall, water can be stored and anti-sedimented and cleaned and, if necessary, operations can be temporarily stopped. Mr. Brundage indicates that he has never seen any standing water on the site during his five visits nor has any standing water ever been reported to him. He is aware of no historical or archaeological sites on the property, and at no point would rock be mined within 50 feet of the property line. Dr. Durbin Tabb, a botanist, was retained by the Petitioner to prepare a plan for restoration of the site after mining operations were complete. In preparing his plan, he visited the site on several occasions finding varying plant life, much of which was grasses and rushes. In the north was a pine lowland where he saw palmettos scattered in the grassland as well as a few dwarf cypress trees. He also observed a small cluster of cabbage palms in the southern portion of the eastern tract and noted that the currently existing berm along the eastern boundary of the eastern tract is currently being invaded by exotic plant life including the Brazilian pepper. Dr. Tabb found little evidence of recent surface water accumulation; mollusk residue showed no evidence of recent viability; and he found no crawfish burrows which, if present, would show a water table near the surface. Other visitors to the site, however, did find crawfish burrows. The marsh soil shows that, at some time in the past, it was wet enough to support a soil-forming community. This is no longer' the case according to, Dr. Tabb. The process was stopped by the formulation of the Golden Gate Canal System in the 1960's. The existing marsh does, however', hold sufficient water to support the growth of muhli grass. Dr. Tabb's restoration plan is his best estimate of how the property can be restored to its previous condition by replanting native species found in the area. The program will include littoral zone vegetation to provide shelter and a feeding zone along the water's edge which does not now exist. The plan calls for the saying of the marsh soil. Since neither DER nor the client responded to his plan, when submitted, with any suggestions or corrections, he assumed it was approved. Dr. Tabb, who is also an expert in estuarian biology and zoology, concluded that the area on which this site is located is a very poor habitat for deer and panther. The red cockaded woodpecker has no trees on the property which it specifically desires and the property is a poor or nonexistent habitat for the indigo snake and the Everglades snake. It might, however, constitute a habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, but this bird has never been seen in this inland area. Panthers cross the area as do bears, but the presence of the excavated lake would be no more hindrance to them in their crossing than would the presence of Alligator Alley and the proposed 1-75. The area with sawgrass and muhli grass, which is dominant throughout the Golden Gate area, is called a "dry prairie" as opposed to a "wet prairie." While some of the same plants exist, it is somewhat different in that there are no viable wetlands wildlife organisms currently existing on the property. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, the property has lost its wetlands characteristics and only the marsh soil's water retention permits the life of the grasses currently existing. Wading birds would use the site later but do not currently utilize the area where excavation would take place. In Dr. Tabb's restoration plan, the slope to the lake would be replanted with saw and muhli grasses down to the litoral zone. From there on to the water, a palette of normal wet grasses would be planted to serve as feeding sites and roasting sites for the birds. In addition, an island planted with willows would be constructed off shore in the lake. Deer currently visit the area. They are not currently supported on the land though Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, indicated that they come out of the pine flats at night to feed on the grasses on the prairie. These deer form a large portion of the food chain for the panther, and Dr. Tabb does not consider it conceivable that the project, replanted and restored, would in any way adversely impact the Florida panther or the birds in issue here. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, it is questionable whether the site comes under the jurisdiction of DER based on the grasses present because he cannot find the water connection to confer jurisdiction. Dr. Tabb has not seen standing water on the site as he has seen on two other sites within the area where DER has granted permits for rock pits. On a site like this, the vegetation changes with the seasons. This site is not now connected to the canal along Alligator Alley by vegetation. There may have been a vegetation connection in the past, but as one goes up toward the site from the canal, the grass changes gradually from low pineland grasses found on higher ground to the lower sawgrasses found on the site in question. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, if Mr. Houle's property is to be considered a wetland, it is a transitional wetland. Turning to the issue of loss of habitat, if one assumes that portion of the property that will be converted to a lake will be denied to the panther, this is not the case for the deer which, in this area, is considered to be aquatic. Any denial of the lake area would constitute a very small negative impact compared to what is going on in other areas of Collier County. Admitting that there is a requirement to consider the cumulative impact of a project, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, this project would constitute a "may impact" situation. There is no definitive evidence as to what would happen, and he would be more concerned if the area were now a good panther habitat. It is not, however, and in fact it is no more than a habitat for the grasses which grow there. As to the wetlands issue, the only sign of exotic plant invasion is in the disturbed area around the canal which was installed approximately 18 years ago. The absence of these exotic species is, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, a clear indication that there is no flowing or standing water since the site is too dry for the germination of the seeds. There will be some removal of the biomass by the excavation of the lake. This biomass, consisting of grass primarily, is consumed by fire every year or so and insects eat it as well. Admittedly, some of the biomass is being eaten by animals of some nature and that which is converted to a lake will be removed. There is a trade-off, however. Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine biologist, prepared a report, on the water quality of the adjacent 8 Mile Canal, and other water bodies in the area. In preparation of his report, he took water samples in the areas in question, read literature on the water quality in the area, and looked at water quality data provided by U.S. government agencies and private companies. On the several visits he made to the site, he has not seen any surface water. The first time he could get water only in the adjacent canal, and he also got some water from the land borings done by Dr. Missimer on the site. Dr. Roessler is familiar with State standards for water quality and, in his opinion, the turbidity standards would not be disturbed because there was no water on the ground to be sheet flow. All water was at least three feet underground and, in addition, Petitioner has agreed to properly sod or otherwise treat the berms he will build to prevent erosion and any resultant turbidity either off-site or in the 8 Mile Canal. Dr. Roessler also does not believe the project would violate the oil and grease standards. There is nothing inherent in the mining process to bring into play oils and greases except for the possible problem in refueling and maintenance operations. In that regard, Petitioner has shown how he will provide against that by placing a membrane to prevent any oil, grease or other contaminant from getting into the ground. This area does not contain the organic mulch which produces natural oils and greases. The water near the surface of the lake will contain sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet State standards without problem. In the summer months when the dissolved oxygen count is low, generally, the lake bottom water may not meet State standards, but that happens quite frequently, naturally, across the entire area. Dr. Roessler believes that the dissolved oxygen requirements of 2.5 at the surface and .5 at the bottom will most likely be met in the lake created by this project. Concerning the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), he concludes the operation in the quarry will not artificially decrease the available oxygen below the required amount. The BOD demand in this area would not be threatened by the lake. As to the iron standard and other toxic substances, Dr. Roessler does not believe that the project will create a violation of the standard nor will any runoff increase dissolved iron in adjacent waters. Hydrogen sulfide and pharasulfide standards will similarly not be violated. Sulfides are found only in trace amounts, if at all, in natural waters. In deep limestone lakes the chemical structure is not conducive to the formation of the acidic compounds. In short, Dr. Roessler believes the water in the mine would be very similar to that found in other rock quarries in the area. These lakes are a dominant portion of the recreational fresh water fishing availability. This instant lake also will, in time, upon development of the food chain for the fish, become an equivalent fishing habitat. Dr. Roessler concurs with Dr. Tabb regarding the flora on the site, which he observed himself. This site is 15 to 18 miles from marine or estuarian waters and to reach them one would have to go down a series of canals and past a saline dam to the coast. Any runoff from the site in question would have, if any, a minuscule effect on marine waters. This site was originally a wet prairie which was drained by the Golden Gate Canal System. As such it is a relatively poor habitat for life forms generally found in cypress wetlands. Creation of this lake will, in the opinion of Dr. Roessler, enhance the game, fish, and recreational activity of the area. It would be a benefit to the animal population to have a water source for drinking during drought. There would be no adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare. Turning to the major issue of water, Dr. Thomas Missimer, a hydrogeologist specializing in ground water, visited the site, examining the canal on the east side, and the soils and rocks exposed. He took soil borings and examined the site hydrology to see what fluctuations occurred in the water levels due to rainfall. Mr. Missimer, took numerous readings from September 18 through November 5, 1987 during a period of wet weather including a tropical storm. He carefully compared the site geology to other sites he had studied and compared the flow of water through the soil. He compiled existing information on chemistry in the streams in the area to see what the natural conditions were. He looked at other man-made lakes in the area which were previously borrow pits. As a result of his studies, he concluded that the groundwater level throughout the entire period never got higher than three feet below the land's surface and often was five feet below. During the previous July through September, 34 inches of rain fell in the area which was, in his opinion, average to above average. There is some evidence, however, to indicate that rainfall in the area was approximately 33 percent below average during the period. Nonetheless, Mr. Missimer took a measurement the day after a tropical storm had deposited three inches of water on the land. The water level at that time was still three feet below land level, and there was no standing water. Both the three foot and the five foot level are well below the top of the berm sloped at 10:1 as is proposed in the restoration plan submitted by Dr. Tabb. This site has, from a hydrological standpoint, been greatly affected by the installation, of the 8 Mile Canal and the canal system to the north. As, a result of this activity, standing water has not existed for many, years since the dredging of those canals. If de-watering is a necessary portion of the mining plan, any waters removed thereby would be retained in the impoundment area described by Mr. Brundage and switched back and forth. As proposed, the plan can completely avoid any impact to off-site property by water runoff. Construction of the pit and the lowering of the water level thereby will not have a major impact on the groundwater in the surrounding areas. Any effect would taper off as the distance increased from the site and would be of little significance. This proposal would also have little, if any, impact on groundwater quality. In Mr. Missimer's opinion, water quality is currently good and will stay good. This type of rock mine is very common in the area incident to construction. Some have been used as a source of potable water by The City of Naples; by Deltona Utility Company for Marco Island; and the south area of the County. These resources are still being used. There is little difference between those currently being used as potable water sources and the proposed lake here. Mr. Missimer also indicates the project will have little impact on the sheet flow of water. Sheet flow no longer exists here because of the canals and roads already existing. If there were a sheet flow created by a very heavy rain, this pit would have no impact on it. The water level in the lake will be approximately the same as exists in the ground currently and in the 8 Mile Canal. There should be no shoaling in the canal due to the project, and the presently existing spoil bank on the west side of the canal already prevents flow into the, canal from this land. If this pit is properly constituted and maintained, and if proper mining procedures are followed there should be no effect on the 8 Mile Canal to the east or the Alligator Alley Canal to the south. There is no surface water connection currently existing between this site and either canal. As to the issue of dissolved oxygen, the currently existing groundwater on the site and in the surrounding area has little or no dissolved oxygen in it. Water coming into the lake will be groundwater low in dissolved oxygen, which is identical to the water which currently goes into the canal system. The canal gets very little oxygen from the wind because it is so narrow. The lakes to be constructed, on the other hand, will get a large amount of oxygen from the 56 acres of water exposed to the open air. Consequently, construction of the lakes would increase the dissolved oxygen content of the water in the area, at least in the lakes, down to a level of several feet. This is a positive factor. Mr. Missimer recognizes, however, that during the dry seasons, when the lake is fed solely by groundwater generally low in dissolved oxygen, the lake water which has been converted to surface water may fail to meet the Department's surface water standards for dissolved oxygen. Warmer weather generally results in lower dissolved oxygen readings and, admittedly, Respondent's readings were taken in December when the dissolved oxygen levels are higher. As a result, the comparative samples which were taken in December are not necessarily indicative of what will be the situation in the lake, year- round. Respondent's witnesses present a more dismal picture of the effect of Petitioner's proposed project. Mr. Bickner, an Environmental Supervisor with DER's Bureau of Permits and himself an expert in water quality, zoology, and ecosystem biology, first became involved with this project while the permit request was being processed in late 1986. This application was a standard form project because of the quantity of material to be excavated. As a part of his processing, Mr. Bickner requested evaluations of the project from other agencies and divisions within DER and, on the basis of his personal evaluation and the recommendations he received, concluded that the application was not permittable. He recommended it be denied. Mr. Bickner considered Petitioner's application under the provisions of Chapter 403.918, Florida Statutes, which requires a two step evaluation. In the first step, the project must be determined to meet water quality standards. If it does, as a second stage, the project must be determined not to be contrary to the public interest. The major water quality standard in issue here was that of dissolved oxygen along with that concerning BOD and other deleterious substances. The water body involved was classified as a Class III Water under the provisions of Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, since it was designed to be a recreational, fish and wildlife habitat. The standards contained in the statute and the rule relate to surface water as opposed to groundwater and, as to the public interest question, Chapter 403 provides a list of seven factors which must be evaluated. In this determination the agency has wide latitude and no one factor is controlling. In evaluation, agency personnel try to look at the project overall. Specifically, the project cannot cause or contribute to an existing water quality violation. In evaluation, agency personnel do not look at the project by itself. They must keep in mind that other projects exist or are proposed for the area. This is known as the cumulative impact of the project which is provided for in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. As to the variance requested, this is also provided for by statute. The criteria require that the petition be based on some specific ground. In the instant case, the ground utilized by Petitioner was that there was no alternative to the dissolved oxygen level proposed. Granting of a variance is totally within the discretion of the Department even if Petitioner can show grounds therefor. Mr. Bickner was at the site only once. He approached from the south. At the low end of the approach was a mixture of wetlands and upland vegetation, but as he got toward the site the upland species dropped off and only the wetland species only remained. These were primarily sawgrass, cattails, and the like. He was satisfied that there was no obvious break in jurisdiction, and the testimony of Mr. Beever confirmed that jurisdiction over the site was gained through the wetlands character of the property from the site down to the Alligator Alley Canal, which is considered a water of the state. The site consists primarily of sawgrass and muhli grass with minor amounts of other grasses. The site seems to rise toward the 8 Mile Canal where there is an invasion of Brazilian peppers and other exotic species. Mr. Bickner was looking for upland species and found only one specimen of one species, a few of another, and no invasion of slash pine on the site at all. As a result, he concluded that the site was not an upland site. There was no standing water on the site at the time Mr. Bickner visited it, but the soil was wet to the surface. In addition, there was a large number of recently dead shells in low spots which had held water. There were some tracks of a large animal and a large number of smaller animal tracks and scats (scats are animal droppings). He also saw some birds which were too far away to identify and observed what he thought were crayfish tunnels near the cypress trees. Mr. Bickner found evidence of dried periphyton widely scattered over the site. Periphyton, an algae which attaches itself to other plants and which in times of inundation, forms sheets across the water connecting one plant to another, is a sign of previous inundation. The other plants on the site were not showing water deprivation stress, and there was no evidence of upland species invasion. All of this leads Mr. Bickner to conclude that the area has plenty of water and this opinion was enhanced by the lushness of the plants' growth. This, along with the high diversity of plant life, indicated to him a healthy ecosystem. To Mr. Bikner, the fact that the area was not currently inundated is not significant. In this particular area there are wet and dry seasons and, even in the dry season such as existed at the time of his visit, the soil was wet. The signs he saw indicated to him there has to be standing water on the site at some time. His visit was in January, which is well within the dry season. As to water quality, Mr. Bickner does not believe that the water quality standards will not be violated. In fact, by the nature of the project, Petitioner has, in Mr. Bickner's opinion, assured that it will be violated. A 20 foot deep pit must, in his opinion, result in low levels of dissolved oxygen below standards. Any water below seven foot in depth has little dissolved oxygen. Most dissolved oxygen is in the surface water, and there is little exchange between deep and surface waters. As a result, he concludes that the groundwater has low dissolved oxygen, a fact confirmed by Mr. Missimer. Dissolved oxygen is the only source of oxygen for fish and aquatic animals. Without dissolved oxygen, the fish die. There are currently no fish on the property. Mr. Bickner was also concerned with the biochemical oxygen demand which would further reduce the oxygen levels in the water. He was further concerned with the hydrogen sulfide levels coming from deterioration of plant material in the bottom of the pit, and iron which he found to be already in the groundwater. Mr. Bickner contends that during construction of the pit petro- chemicals will be introduced into the water, and that during the construction period the on-site water will have increased turbidity which will most likely be transmitted off-site as the pit is de-watered. There are management procedures which can reduce the risk, but none can avoid it entirely. Mr. Bickner is satisfied that the water quality standards will not be met. It is so found. Mr. Bickner also evaluated the property from the public interest standpoint, and in that regard he is satisfied there is a substantial potential for damage to adjacent properties by de-watering. Based on his experience and observation of other projects, he is satisfied there is no way to keep people employed on the site from using adjacent property for parking and vehicle maintenance. The witness believes that the 56 acres of habitat removed by the lake, and the remaining acres, which will be replanted, will be permanently impacted. While he admits that the property as it currently exists, may not be a prime habitat for the panther, there is some evidence which indicates panthers do cross it. He is concerned that the applicants submission here does not sufficiently answer all the questions as to impact on the public interest. The mechanics of the maintenance yard, soil storage and other potential areas of trauma are not explained satisfactorily, and Mr. Bickner does not see how all that is proposed can fit on the site. As a result, in his opinion, there must be some off-site impact. As to cumulative impact, since the valuable rock does not lie only under Petitioner's property, owners of the surrounding property may want to mine their properties as Petitioner proposes to do. If that happens, Mr. Bickner cannot explain how the Department can deny these subsequent applications. If the current application is permitted, taken together with the others, there would be a serious effect on the panther population. This opinion is not supported by evidence, however. If the public interest test is the only basis for disqualification of the project, (here the water quality test is also not met) a permit can still be granted if the applicant agrees to take appropriate mitigation steps at the site. Mr. Bickner is of the opinion that the applicant's mitigation plan to create the 100 foot wide shelf around the lake is not the same type of system which currently exists, will not fulfill the same function as the present property, and is not sufficiently large to replace what is being lost. One basis for granting the variance suggested by the Petitioner was the public interest, (the material was to be used for a public road), and the other was that there was no alternative way to get the material. While it is possible the rock would be used for public road, Mr. Bickner was concerned no assurances were given by the Petitioner that it would be. No contract has been signed yet, and Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that the letter from the Department of Transportation, indicating the rock there would suit its purpose, is sufficient indication that a contract would be signed. There is a possibility of making the pit shallower, which would permit the dissolved oxygen content of the lake water to meet state standards, but even if that problem were solved, Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that Petitioner has met the public interest test. Respondent has granted three permits and a variance to the Department of Transportation to build a portion of I-75 across Alligator Alley in Collier County. These permits are for the dredging of canals parallel to the roadway and to develop a borrow lake of 73.1 acres to be excavated to a depth of from 6 to 9.7 feet. The variance in question applies to all three projects and relates to the dissolved oxygen level. The DOT variance was applied for on the basis that no practical means for avoidance of the pollution existed. The Department of Transportation did not request a variance for BOD or for toxic and deleterious substances or iron. Mr. Bickner, admitted that these permitted projects would possibly have the same problem of oils and greases as he foresees with Petitioner's project. Nonetheless, he concludes that Petitioner's project should not be permitted, even though the Alligator Alley canals are already below standards, because to do so would contribute to a currently existing violation. Mr. James Beever, an Environmental Specialist with the Department of, Environmental Regulation, visited the site on several occasions, both on the ground and from the air. He observed much of the same flora and fauna observed by the other visitors who testified in this case and took color photographs of the area which portray the character of the property. All of the plants he discovered on the site are on the DER jurisdictional list and, on at least one occasion, from the air, he saw standing water on the site. In his opinion, the property is a fresh water wet prairie system which is admittedly drier than it should be. The plants he saw on the site indicate the jurisdiction of DER if there is a connection to other waters of the state, and in Mr. Beever's opinion, there is connection through the flow of sheet water south from the site to the I-75 (Alligator Alley) canal; then, east to the 8 Mile Canal; then south to the Fuqua Union Canal which empties southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. In his opinion, therefore, this is definitely jurisdictional land, and it is so found. The site supports an underground system of roots as well as the upper portion of the, plants existing thereon. He observed periphyton and many other animal tracks and scats. He also saw signs of regular inundation such as numerous snail shells, and he is satisfied there is no indication of a change in the area from the wetlands to an upland area. Admittedly, the area has been dry for a while. Even after Hurricane Floyd in 1987, there was no standing water. The site is, in his opinion, definitely productive, however. The vegetation existing thereon stabilizes the soil and provides food for snails, insects and crayfish which are on the bottom of the foodchain for other life forms on the property. The grasses provide a habitat for animals such as cotton rats, roosts for birds, pollen for insects, all which, themselves, become food for the larger animals. This wetland is a part of a large wetland prairie system and part of the Fuqua Union drainage basin, and acts as a filter for the water system for the area. According to Mr. Beever, most borrow pits like this are located on uplands which then provide rain water lakes. The instant pit, however, is in a wetlands area and if built, he believes, will engender violations during the mining operation. Groundwater coming in will contain iron and hydrogen sulfide which will combine with the dissolved oxygen in the water and further deplete the already low oxygen levels. All of this will constitute a violation of the rules regarding waters of the state since the waters within the pit would fall within that category. Mr. Beever is also concerned with the `bridge over the 8 Mile Canal and the turbidity connected with its construction and removal. In substance, Mr. Beever is convinced that construction of the project will create violations of the water quality standards for the area. As to the public interest, the wetlands character of the site will be completely lost. The vegetation will be removed, and the animals utilizing it will either leave or be destroyed. After, construction, some natural healing will occur, but a long-term maintenance program will be required to provide even different functions for the land than those which currently exist. In that regard, Mr. Beever is convinced that the applicant's proposed restoration plan is not acceptable. It will not replace the lost functions of the site; it will replace the species removed with a different ecosystem; it will provide a habitat for different species of animals and birds; it will adversely affect the shoaling and erosion in the lake itself (this is found to be without merit); it will have some adverse effect on the property of others; and will have an adverse cumulative impact on the area. The habitat will not be used any more by endangered species such as the wood stork and the panther. Even assuming, arguendo, the plans were suitable, in Mr. Beever's opinion, the project would not work here because of the lack of information on what the actual water level of the lake will be. The plant species proposed may not remain because of possible changes in water level in the lake. In addition, the marl berms will dry out over the three years of their life while the pit is being worked, and form a location for a lot of invasive upland plants. Much of Mr. Beever's concern is shared by Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, who indicated that birds now frequently use the area for nesting and feeding because of its wetlands character. Endangered species such as the Florida panther cross it from time to time as does the Florida black bear. Human encroachment reduces the panther's territory and reduces the area for forage of deer, which are the principal food of the panther. The bigger issue, however, is the cumulative impact. The 80 acres is not so important by itself, but to permit its removal would set a precedent for future encroachment by others. Mr. Barnett's experience is that restoration plans are quite often not successful. Even the successful ones, however, replace the removed system with a different system, and the species which now use the property would find it much less desirable as changed. Specifically, the bear, the deer, and the panther would find it unusable as proposed. At the present time, the deer spend their days in the pines forest to the north of the property, coming out onto the area, in question only at night to feed. It is during the night that the panther stalks. As presently constituted, this property is of no benefit to the wood stork or the red cockaded woodpecker. The Cape Sable sparrow could use it but does not. The development of Golden Gate Estates to the north and east and south of the property has a two pronged effect on the area in question. The southern portion of Golden Gate Estates has been abandoned, but the central and northern portions will be developed. On the one hand, it is likely that the increased population to the north and east will make the Petitioner's property less desirable and make access to it more difficult for the wildlife currently utilizing it. On the other hand, removal of the northern and central portions of Golden Gate from usable area for the panther and other species make it more important that Petitioner's area, which Barnett claims is not likely to be developed, remain as an animal habitat to offset the encroachment of the development area. There is no evidence to support this prediction of non- development, however. History tends to indicate otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be issued a dredge and fill permit as requested and a variance to the state water quality standards as identified in the request. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1469 AND 87-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. 3 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Accepted. 21 - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Not a Finding of Fact. 25 - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for finding it is likely that more wildlife will use the site after construction. Rejected as speculation. 29 - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36 - 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42. Accepted. 43 - 44. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted and incorporated-herein. 22 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. Rejected as contra to evidence presented. 37 - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 - 43. Rejected. 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45 - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48 - 60. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. Accepted in part - (temporary). Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Routa, Esquire ROBERTS, EGAN & ROUTA, P.A. 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues are whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation is entitled to the issuance of an industrial wastewater facility permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program that would authorize it to discharge industrial wastewater to the St. Johns River in Putnam County, Florida, and whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation has met the statutory criteria for a related administrative order for the interim discharge to Rice Creek in Putnam County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of wastes to waters of the State. Under approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program in the State. The Department also enforces specific water quality standards that have to be achieved in order to ensure protection of the designated uses of surface waters in the State. Respondent, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Georgia- Pacific), owns and operates a bleached and unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill in Putnam County, Florida. The plant presently discharges treated wastewater to Rice Creek, a Class III water of the State, and a tributary of the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Putnam County Environmental Council, Inc. (PCEC), alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) that it is a non-profit Florida corporation headquartered in Palatka, Florida. However, other than a statement by one witness that PCEC was incorporated on an undisclosed date prior to the hearing, PCEC failed to present any evidence to establish its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. According to the same witness, the organization was created in an unincorporated status in 1991, and it currently has 65 members who use and enjoy the St. Johns River for recreational purposes. Petitioner, Stewards of the St. Johns River, Inc. (SSJR), also alleged in the Petition that it is a non-profit Florida corporation with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. Like PCEC, SSJR failed to prove its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. Although the number of members in SSJR is unknown, "many" of its members are boaters and "most" live along the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Linda Young, is Southeast Regional Coordinator for the Clean Water Network and a citizen of the State of Florida. As such, she has standing to "intervene" in this action under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In this complex case, the parties have presented extensive and conflicting evidence regarding the factual issues raised by the pleadings. In resolving the numerous conflicts in that testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, as set forth in the findings below. The Applicant's Mill Operation Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill was built in the 1940's before the establishment of Department water quality standards and classifications. Because of the nature of the pulping process, the mill has not been able to fully meet water quality standards in Rice Creek because of poor dilution. Georgia-Pacific receives wood chips from a sister facility and purchases residual chips from local wood products facilities. Those chips are separated into pine and hardwood, conveyed into the pulp processing facility, and loaded into digesters, that is, industrial-sized pressure cookers, which cook the chips for several hours. Pulp from the digesters goes to the brown kraft, bleached kraft, and tissue manufacturing facilities. Water in the manufacturing process is used, re-used, and recirculated until it cannot be used again, at which point it is conveyed into a primary wastewater clarifier, which is used to settle out fiber and other settleable solids. Additional wastewater sources are collected in sumps located in the facility, which are discharged into the primary clarifier. The underflow from the primary clarifier flows into a solids settling area (sludge pond) while the water from the primary clarifier passes into a secondary treatment system. The secondary treatment system uses aerobic and facultative biological treatment. Stormwater at the facility also flows into the treatment system. The secondary treatment system consists of four ponds in series: Pond 1, 485 acres, aerated with over 1600 horsepower of aeration; Pond 2, 175 acres, with 140 horsepower of aeration; Pond 3, 130 acres, with 120 horsepower of aeration; and Pond 4, 100 acres. Pond 4 is a quiescent basin, used to settle solids in the wastewater before discharge. The treatment system has a very long hydraulic detention time; once water enters the system, it remains there for 50 to 60 days. After treatment, a side stream of roughly 8,000,000 gallons per day of treated effluent is withdrawn, oxygenated with liquid oxygen, and discharged at two locations in Rice Creek: 3.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-001); and 2.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-002). Under low flow conditions, effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill dominates the flow in Rice Creek. The Application Process Rice Creek is a small tributary of the St. Johns River, particularly in its upper reaches where Georgia- Pacific's effluent discharge occurs. Over the years, there have been exceedances of certain Class III water quality standards including specific conductance, color, and periodically whole effluent toxicity. Because of this, and during the permit review process, the Department began considering alternatives for mitigating or eliminating those existing concerns with the facility's discharge. In October 1992, Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for the renewal of its existing wastewater discharge permit. In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific submitted an application to the Department for the construction and operation of an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system. This application included a request to relocate Georgia-Pacific’s existing discharge to the St. Johns River. Because Georgia-Pacific submitted timely permit applications, it is authorized to continue operations based on an "administratively extended permit." In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific also applied to the EPA for a permit under the NPDES program. In October 1994, the EPA acknowledged receipt of a timely application for the renewal of Georgia-Pacific's existing NPDES permit, advising Georgia-Pacific by letter that its permit was automatically extended and that continued operation was authorized in accordance with the existing permit and 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c). On May 24, 1995, the Department advised Georgia- Pacific that the EPA had granted the Department the authority to administer the NPDES program and that its state permit and existing NPDES permit were deemed combined into one order. In response to a Department request, in November 1995, Georgia-Pacific submitted to the Department an antidegradation review for the relocation of its discharge. After Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for a renewal of its NPDES permit, the Department directed Georgia-Pacific to provide alternatives that would ensure compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific submitted a proposal to construct a pipeline that would enable it to discharge its effluent to the middle of the St. Johns River. Under that proposal, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with water quality standards as a result of greater dilution in the St. Johns River. Based on a review of Georgia-Pacific's submittal, the Department determined that Georgia-Pacific could in fact achieve water quality standards by constructing a pipeline to the St. Johns River. Likewise, the EPA concluded that Georgia-Pacific could receive a permit to discharge to the St. Johns River through a pipeline, without additional process improvements. Although the Department concluded that compliance could be achieved solely by the construction of a pipeline, it began discussions with Georgia-Pacific and EPA in order to examine other approaches that might lead to compliance in Rice Creek. These discussions culminated in a decision that Georgia-Pacific would invest substantial funds in the installation of additional technology and also be assured of some ultimate means to achieve compliance with water quality standards. On May 1, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an industrial wastewater permit, together with an Order Establishing Compliance Schedules Under 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes (the Administrative Order). In late January 2002, Georgia-Pacific submitted a request to the Department asking for consideration of two changes to the proposed permit: first, a request to relocate a groundwater monitoring well; and second, a request to review the Department's proposed mixing zone in the St. Johns River for the transparency standard. The Department also proposes a minor change in permit conditions to allow approval of the bleach plant monitoring plan to take place within sixty days after the issuance of the final permit. Both of Georgia- Pacific's requests were reviewed by the Department, and it has recommended that they be included in the proposed permit. Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits When considering a permit application such as the one here, the Department reviews the application to determine compliance with technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). TBELs are minimum industry standards that all facilities must meet regardless of their discharge location. They are predominantly production-based, and they limit the mass of pollutants that may be discharged based on the mass of product produced. Those limits generally reflect EPA's assessment of the industry standard regarding what can be met in a given discharge. In the preparation of a permit, the Department practice is to first determine the TBELs that would apply. In contrast, a WQBEL reflects how low the discharge must be (or how effective treatment must be) for a given parameter to meet water quality standards. Relief mechanisms such as mixing zones are inherent in WQBELs. A WQBEL is necessary only for those parameters for which there is a reasonable potential for the facility either to exceed the water quality standard or come close to exceeding the standard. As a matter of agency practice, the Department does not impose a limit unless there is a reasonable potential to exceed a standard. In order to determine whether there is such a reasonable potential for exceeding a standard, the Department will review past operations and other information it may have regarding the characteristics of the discharge. For a discharge such as the one proposed in the present case, a "Level II" WQBEL is required. The Department's Point Source Section, with expertise in the field of water quality modeling, analyzes the Level II WQBEL. Georgia-Pacific must meet certain technology-based standards, such as those set forth in the Cluster Rule. The Cluster Rule has been promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department and requires the installation of technologies to eliminate the use of elemental chlorine in the bleaching process. The Palatka facility far exceeds (performs better than) technology-based effluent limits. In March 1998, the Department created a document titled "Level II Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for the Georgia Pacific Corp. Palatka Mill" (the WQBEL Technical Report]. The WQBEL Technical Report has a typed notation on the title page reading "March 1998 -- Final." The WQBEL Technical Report contained the following effluent discharge limitations: The following are the effluent limitations for the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill discharge to the St. Johns River based upon results from the Level II WQBEL. Review comments from EPA Region 4 are included in the correspondence section. Parameter Limitation Discharge 60 MGD Daily Maximum BOD5 Summer (June 1 - November 30) 3,500 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 7,170 lbs/day maximum thirty day average TSS Summer (June 1 - November 30) 5,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 10,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Dissolved Oxygen 2.7 mg/l minimum Specific conductance 3,220 umhos/cm daily maximum Un-Ionized Ammonia Nitrogen Summer (June 1 - November 30) .11 ug/l daily maximum Winter (December 1 – May 31) .13 ug/l daily maximum Iron (Total Recoverable) 2.91 mg/l daily maximum Cadmium (Total Recoverable) 3.46 ug/l daily maximum Lead (Total Recoverable) 5.87 ug/l daily maximum Zinc (Total Recoverable) 480 ug/l daily maximum When the WQBEL Technical Report was approved in 1998, the Department's Northeast District Office did not prepare a separate formal notice of approval. The WQBEL Technical Report was transmitted by memorandum from the Water Quality Assessment Section to the Department's Director of District Management for the Northeast District on April 13, 1998, where it remained on file. The WQBEL Technical Report complied with the plan of study previously approved by the Department, and it met the requirements of Rule 62-650.500, Florida Administrative Code. Both the Department and EPA staff concurred with the approval of the WQBEL Technical Report. They agreed that the construction of a pipeline and the relocation of the discharge to the St. Johns River would yield a net environmental benefit without additional process improvements. Upgrades Implemented and Required in the Proposed Agency Actions As described more fully below, Georgia-Pacific has modified its production and treatment processes in such a manner as to improve its overall environmental performance. In installing some of those modifications, Georgia-Pacific undertook what was required by federal and state law. For others, Georgia-Pacific has exceeded what it was required to do under state or federal law. To comply with the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific eliminated two bleach plants and installed a new bleach plant, one which uses chlorine dioxide as opposed to elemental chlorine. The implementation of this technology is primarily aimed at eliminating the mechanism for the formation of dioxin in the bleaching plant. Compliance with the Cluster Rule generally requires, among other things, conversion to an elemental chlorine-free bleaching system. Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the Cluster Rule. Under the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific is required to sample for dioxin at its bleach plant, with a limit of under 10 picograms per liter. Georgia-Pacific has experienced reductions in the color of its effluent as the result of the chlorine dioxide conversion as well as reductions in specific conductance. The reductions in specific conductance are particularly significant because Georgia-Pacific has decreased its effluent flow, which would ordinarily increase specific conductance in the absence of additional improvements. After conversion to chlorine dioxide, Georgia- Pacific began monitoring for parameters defined by the Cluster Rule. In that monitoring, Georgia-Pacific has tested "non- detect" for dioxin and chlorinated phenolics. Specifically, Georgia-Pacific has monitored dioxin in its effluent, as well as within its process –- before dilution with other wastewater –- and the monitoring results at both locations are likewise "non-detect" for dioxin. Furthermore, levels of chloroform and adsorbable organic halides (AOX) have been well within the limits imposed by the proposed permit and the Cluster Rule. Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily agreed to install by April 15, 2006, an oxygen delignification system, or a like system that produces similar or better environmental benefits. Oxygen delignification is a precursor to bleaching, which removes lignins from the fiber before the product is bleached. This process is significant because lignin consumes chemicals, impedes bleaching, and prohibits achieving brightness targets in the bleach plant. The cost associated with the oxygen delignification system is $22,700,000. This commitment is reflected in the proposed Administrative Order and Permit. Oxygen delignification has been identified as having significant benefits in terms of reducing the color and specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific voluntarily agreed to install by August 15, 2003, a new brownstock washing system to replace four existing brownstock washing lines. A brownstock washer is a piece of equipment that washes organics away from fiber, after pulping and before oxygen delignification. The cost of this equipment is approximately $30,000,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. The new brownstock washers are not required by Department rules, but they will be helpful in reducing the specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific has also voluntarily agreed to install a green liquor dregs filter. This system would remove dregs from the effluent system and reduce specific conductance and color in the effluent. The cost of the green liquor dregs filter is $1,100,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. Under the proposed agency action, Georgia-Pacific is likewise required to install additional equipment for the implementation of its best management practices program to minimize leaks and spills in the process sewer. This equipment, including controls on the brownstock washer system, and the installation of a spill control system, pumps, and piping, has been installed at a cost of $7,100,000. Georgia-Pacific has also optimized the performance of its treatment system through the relocation of its aerators in the treatment ponds and modifying its nutrient feed system. This has led to reduced levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the discharge, as well as improved treatment for total suspended solids. In addition, Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily installed a reverse osmosis system to recycle certain internal streams, which in turn has led to reductions in specific conductance, at a cost of $3,300,000. To comply with the proposed agency actions, Georgia- Pacific expects to expend a total of approximately $170,000,000 for upgrades for the purpose of producing environmental benefits. Additional money is earmarked for other environmental performance issues, such as water conservation. Except for technology-based limits adopted by rule, the Department does not dictate how a facility achieves compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific demonstrated that its environmental performance is substantially better than required by technology-based limits. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to find that Georgia-Pacific’s commitments to process improvements will lead to a general improvement in water quality in the receiving waters. Relocation of the Discharge As noted above, because of the minimal dilution available in Rice Creek, Georgia-Pacific has never been fully able to achieve water quality standards in Rice Creek, a Class III water body. Rice Creek continues to exceed water quality criteria for specific conductance and color; historically, the discharge had experienced exceedences for the chronic toxicity criterion. Under present conditions, with Georgia-Pacific discharging to Rice Creek and Rice Creek flowing to the St. Johns River, elevated levels of color are experienced along the shoreline of the St. Johns River in the area of existing grass beds. Modeling shows that under current flow conditions from Rice Creek, those color effects are observed on the northwest bank near the confluence of Rice Creek with the St. Johns River. If the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River and discharged near the river bottom through a diffuser, it will beneficially change the distribution of color impacts both to Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Color in Rice Creek will improve, returning to its background color of 100 to 150 platinum cobalt units (pcu). Specific conductance within Rice Creek will also be markedly reduced. Because the input will occur in the middle of the St. Johns River, with higher flows and greater turbulence, there will no longer be relatively highly colored water flowing along the shoreline. Therefore, the relocation will provide a significant benefit of moving highly colored water away from grass beds and will mitigate against any existing effects on those grass beds. It is beneficial to relocate discharges to the middle of a stream, as opposed to the edge of a shoreline, where effluent tends to hug the shoreline. Therefore, regardless of the process improvements, there will be a net environmental improvement by relocating the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River The discharge from the proposed diffuser will be comparatively benign, in comparison to the present flow from Rice Creek into the St. Johns River. This is because the effluent would not reach or hug the shoreline in such a scenario but rather would be diluted in rising to the surface, as well as by its lateral movement in the direction toward the river bank. The relocation of the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River will cause improvements through localized changes in concentrations near the diffuser and the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Georgia- Pacific’s proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not result in water quality degradation, but will instead lead to a general improvement in water quality. Proposed Conditions in the Permit and Administrative Order Before certifying completion of the required manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific is required to submit to the Department a report on its ability to optimize the modifications, as well as a separate report which would determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet certain limits that would enable a continuing discharge to Rice Creek. If the water quality improvements are sufficient to achieve standards in Rice Creek, the permit would be reopened and Georgia-Pacific would be required to maintain the present discharge location to Rice Creek. Otherwise, Georgia-Pacific would be authorized to construct the pipeline to the St. Johns River. The permit is drafted so that Georgia-Pacific will verify the need for mixing zones, as well as the dimensions of proposed mixing zones, after process improvements are complete. The Administrative Order imposes interim effluent limitations during the compliance period described in that Order. The Administrative Order contains "report-only" conditions for certain parameters. For those parameters which do not have interim limits, there is no appropriate standard to apply because information on effluent and water quality conditions is incomplete. The Department also found it unreasonable to impose interim limits that will be met only after Georgia-Pacific completes the improvements requested by the Department. Under Department practice, it is reasonable to impose "report only" conditions for parameters when it is unclear whether the discharge for the facility presents a concern for potential exceedences of water quality standards. In addition, "report only" conditions are used when a facility is undertaking an effort to address problems for certain parameters during a period necessary to achieve compliance. The proposed permit includes mixing zones in the St. Johns River for dissolved oxygen, total recoverable iron, total recoverable cadmium, total recoverable lead, un-ionized ammonia, turbidity, and specific conductance. The length of each of those mixing zones is 16.5 meters, that is, limited to the rise of plume. A mixing zone is also required for transparency, which will require a length of 734 meters. Within 12 months after certifying completion of the manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will be required to re-evaluate the need for mixing zones and effluent limits and re-open the permit as necessary to include final mixing zones, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Compliance with Ambient Water Quality Standards The Petition contends that Georgia-Pacific has not provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the following standards: nutrients (paragraph 18); dissolved oxygen (paragraph 20); chronic toxicity (paragraph 21); total suspended solids (paragraph 23); iron (paragraph 25); and phenolic compounds (paragraph 26). Although no water quality standard is directly applicable, Petitioners also addressed the following water quality issues: biological oxygen demand (BOD) (paragraph 20); dioxin, "related compounds," chlorinated organics, AOX, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (paragraph 22); color (paragraph 24); and total suspended solids (TSS), which is alleged to include total organic carbon (TOC) (paragraph 94). Petitioners asserted that dioxin, chlorinated organics, TSS, and AOX are significant in considering compliance with the "free-from" standard in Rules 62- 302.500(1) and 62-302.530. In determining whether water quality standards will be met, those allegations should only be considered in reference to those adopted standards for the "free-from" standard. The effluent data establishes that Georgia-Pacific will consistently meet the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility has the capacity to comply with the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek, and there is a very high degree of assurance that it has the capability to comply with those standards in the future. In addition, Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility is able to meet the WQBELs established for discharge into the St. Johns River. Evaluation and modeling demonstrate that if a discharge to the St. Johns River is undertaken, the St. Johns River will meet Class III water standards at the edge of the mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific complies with its proposed effluent limits. Also, the effluent will meet all applicable effluent guidelines and technology-based standards adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. The effluent will not settle, form deposits, or create a nuisance, and it will not float as debris, scum, or oil. Finally, the effluent will not produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions so as to create a nuisance. Georgia-Pacific performed an analysis to determine the effluent limits that would be necessary to achieve water quality standards. This analysis included water quality modeling, which is a method of summing up inputs and losses, calculating the amount of material in a system, and determining the concentration of a substance. The model was used to geometrically represent the St. Johns River, Etonia Creek, and the reach of the St. Johns River within the study area, which extended from Buffalo Bluff (15 miles upstream of the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River) to Mile Point 50. Rice Creek enters the St. Johns River at Mile Point 74. When a model is performed, the model will yield estimates or predictions of concentrations throughout a water body. Those predictions can be compared to field observations and measurements; if the model is done properly, the calculated numbers should agree with the measured numbers. Modeling is used to evaluate future conditions based on hypothetical future changes to the system. The modeling methods and advanced time-variable models employed by Georgia- Pacific's consultants were approved by the Department. Georgia-Pacific prepared a plan of study to obtain field data in the St. Johns River for the purpose of assuring that the models would simulate observed concentrations of constituents. The Department approved that plan of study and published a notice of approval. The Department also approved the quality assurance project plan for the collection of water quality data in Georgia-Pacific's modeling efforts. After approval of the plan of study and quality assurance project plan, Georgia-Pacific's consultants performed water quality surveys in November 1994 and May 1995. The models employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants were calibrated and produced the observed water quality results. The proposed diffuser would be located about one foot from the bottom of the channel. As designed, the plume would leave the proposed diffuser and spread out, with the upper part of the plume going to the surface of the water. The plume model calculates the dilution at the centerline of the plume, where there would be a minimum of dilution. This method of using the centerline as a reference point leads to a conservative analysis, and it would require the Applicant to achieve more dilution than might otherwise be necessary to achieve water quality standards. For regulatory purposes, the Department usually uses the maximum height of the rise of the plume to determine a mixing zone, the point at which concentrations along the centerline of the plume would level off. Because of that practice, for certain parameters where the required mixing zone is less than the distance of the rise of the plume, a decrease in effluent limits would not lead to a decrease in the size of the mixing zone. Tidal actions will cause re-entrainment, that is, the movement of dissolved substances back into the plume area. This factor reduces the dilution factor that otherwise would apply to the system. This factor is accounted for in modeling by tying in a diffuser computation to a water quality model. The modeling employed by Georgia-Pacific assumes 7Q10 conditions, that is, a conservative assumption that flow is equal to the lowest one-week average for a ten-year period, where there is little dilution. The employment of this conservative method would minimize the probability of exceedences in the receiving water body. The projection employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants was even more conservative because the 7Q10 flow rate is assumed to apply through a 60-day average flow, a condition that may never occur, and would not be expected to occur once in ten years. In contrast, the use of time-variable simulations would lead to less stringent permitting requirements. The permit provides reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, or operation of the treatment system will not discharge or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. The permit provides reasonable assurance that, based on the effluent limitations determined by the Department in the WQBEL Technical Report, water quality standards would be met outside the area of the proposed mixing zone for specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, iron, cadmium, lead, and zinc. Based on additional analysis as reflected in Georgia-Pacific's proposed amendment to the draft permit, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with the transparency standard with the mixing zone described in its proposed amendment, that is, with a total length of 734 meters. The chronic toxicity criterion is a biological measurement which determines whether organisms are impaired by effluent. If impairment is demonstrated, the test does not indicate what component of the effluent is causing the effect. Georgia-Pacific is required to conduct testing for acute and chronic toxicity twice a year. Current tests undertaken in May and October 2001 are representative of effluent conditions after Georgia-Pacific undertook conversion of the bleach plant to chlorine dioxide. Those tests demonstrate that Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the acute and chronic toxicity criterion since the conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching. Georgia-Pacific is also in compliance with the biological integrity standard, based on the most recent fifth-year inspection. Because of the flow characteristics and the characteristics of pulp mill effluent, the pollutants associated with the effluent are not assimilated as the effluent travels from the point of discharge, through Rice Creek, to the St. Johns River. The particulates associated with pulp mill effluent are so small or fine that they will remain in suspension and thus not settle out in Rice Creek. In addition, because Rice Creek is channelized, there is no sloping side that would enable the growth of vegetation that would filter the water. Furthermore, even if there was a sedimentation process occurring in Rice Creek, no additional sedimentation would occur after the system reaches an equilibrium point. Although Rice Creek does cause a small decrease in BOD through oxidation, Georgia-Pacific has compensated for that factor by the injection of oxygen in the effluent. Thus, the direct piping of effluent to the St. Johns River (as opposed to a discharge into Rice Creek, which flows into the St. Johns River) would not result in any significant increase in pollutant loading to the St. Johns River. In addition, the construction of a pipeline would take place only after additional technologies have been implemented to maximize pollutant reduction. Compliance with the Reasonable Assurance Standard Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances for the proposed permit to be issued for a discharge into the St. Johns River. This finding is based upon Georgia-Pacific's ability to meet the effluent standards described in the draft permit, and modeling results demonstrating that, with the proposed mixing zones for certain parameters, a discharge into St. Johns River, as designed, will not result in a violation of Class III standards. Mixing Zones In Section H of their Petition, Petitioners challenged the proposed mixing zones set forth in the proposed Permit. Petitioners generally alleged that the proposed mixing zones were "enormous" and that they failed to comply with certain rules restricting mixing zones. In their Petition, Petitioners articulated three theories to support the proposition that the mixing zones were illegal: first, that the mixing zones would include a nursery area of indigenous aquatic life, including beds of aquatic plants of the type listed in Rule 63-302.200(16); second, that the mixing zone, by itself, would lead to a violation of the minimum criteria in Rule 62-302.500; and third, that the mixing zones, or a combination of those mixing zones, would result in a significant impairment of Class III uses in the St. Johns River. Petitioners were authorized to amend their Petition to add additional allegations to paragraphs 17 and 67 of their original Petition regarding the mixing zone. Under those amendments, Petitioners alleged that Georgia-Pacific’s proposed amendment to the draft permit would (a) improperly expand the mixing zone; (b) fail to account for the length of the diffuser; (c) improperly substitute "transparency" for "color"; and (d) prevent isolation of transparency impacts from color in the discharge. However, there is no evidence which ties those allegations to any regulatory standard that would affect the proposed agency action. Petitioners also contended that color was a surrogate for chemical oxygen demand, as well as for substances that are alleged to cause chronic or acute toxicity. However, as shown by the testimony of Department witness Maher, the permit condition for "color" was a surrogate only for the transparency standard. No evidence to support a contrary inference was presented. Petitioners also made general allegations that the proposed mixing zones are illegal, without a clear indication of what is deemed illegal about the mixing zones. Although the Petition includes a general argument in opposition to mixing zones, Petitioners were unable to suggest a legal basis for alleging that the mixing zones were illegal. For example, Petitioners alleged that certain mixing zones are enormous but failed to articulate why they are so enormous as to be illegal. They did not allege that the Department had erred by allowing a larger mixing zone than Georgia-Pacific should have received under applicable rules. Indeed, such a position would be antithetical to Petitioners' allegations that Georgia-Pacific had failed to achieve water quality standards for a number of parameters. The accepted testimony establishes that Georgia-Pacific's proposed mixing zones will comply with Department rules. No persuasive evidence was presented to the contrary. Because the effluent quality will differ from present conditions after completion of the process improvements, the proposed mixing zones will not be final until after process improvements have been made, the operation has been stabilized, and the mixing zones have been re- verified. No mixing zones are authorized in the Administrative Order. The Administrative Order contains a table setting forth potential mixing zones that are used as a benchmark to determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. The table sets out a series of hypothetical mixing zones at 800 meters, that is, the maximum presumptive distance afforded without additional relief mechanisms. Because no mixing zones are proposed to take effect in Rice Creek, there can be no issue of "illegal" mixing zones in Rice Creek. Within a range of potential discharge flows, from 20 MGD to 60 MGD, water quality standards will be met within the area of the proposed mixing zones for all parameters for which mixing zones are required. Mixing zones are allowed by Department rules and are considered a part of Florida water quality standards. In the context of the Department's permitting review, if a modeling analysis shows that the concentration of a pollutant in effluent is greater than the water quality criterion, the Department will determine if the amount of dilution in the receiving water is sufficient to assimilate the pollutants of concern. The Department will then determine either the length (in the case of a river) or area (in the case of an estuary) of a water body that would be necessary to achieve compliance through dilution. Based on chloride levels, the St. Johns River at the area of concern would not be considered an estuary under Department rules. Each of the proposed mixing zones would be less than 800 meters in length (as allowed by Department rule) and less than 125,600 square meters in area (a limitation that would apply only if the area was an estuary). The proposed discharge will comply with all minimum rule requirements with respect to mixing zones, such as those for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and the absence of acute toxicity. Likewise, the proposed mixing zones will not impact any nursery areas for indigenous aquatic life. Nutrient Issues In Section I, Petitioners contested the Department's decision to not require effluent limits to prevent a violation of the narrative water quality criterion for nutrients. For reasons addressed in the undersigned's Order dated February 14, 2002, that issue is waived based because of Petitioners' failure to file a timely challenge to the WQBEL Technical Report. In addition, based on the findings set out below, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not violate the narrative standard for nutrients. Further, the evidence shows that effluent limits for nutrients are not presently warranted. Petitioners presented testimony that the St. Johns River may be nitrogen-limited or phosphorous-limited at different times of the year, which means that concentrations of one or the other would limit algae growth at different times of the year. Relative light levels, as well as the penetration of light, also affect algae growth. Georgia-Pacific’s treatment system requires the addition of ammonia because ammonia or nitrate is a necessary nutrient for the growth of bacteria in the treatment system. Ammonia and nitrate are both nutrients. Although there can be a conversion from one form to the other, that conversion does not affect the net loss or gain of nutrients. Although nutrient issues are of concern to water bodies, it is absolutely necessary in a biological treatment system to have sufficient nutrients for the operation of the system to treat parameters such as BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility is achieving a high level of treatment while managing its system at a minimum level of nutrient addition. Management of a treatment system requires attention not only to the influent and effluent, but also monitoring of conditions within the system itself to assure adequate treatment. Georgia-Pacific is continuing to refine its procedures for doing so. The State has adopted what is referred to as the "5- 5-3-1" (advanced wastewater treatment) limitation for municipal treatment plants that discharge to surface waters. This standard refers to five milligrams per liter for BOD, five milligrams per liter for suspended solids, three milligrams per liter for total nitrogen, and one milligram per liter for total phosphorous. This limitation has been in effect for many years and remains one of the most stringent state standards in the nation. Georgia-Pacific's facility would be in compliance with those standards for nitrogen and phosphorous. Effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill increases the concentration of total nitrogen in Rice Creek, relative to background conditions. However, because of the relatively higher flow of the St. Johns River, when the load from the mill is transported to the St. Johns River, the increase in nitrogen concentration is so small as to be imperceptible. Nitrogen loading from Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill on a long-term average (prior to upgrades of its treatment plant) has been measured at 1,196 pounds per day. The average loading at Buffalo Bluff, which is far upstream of Rice Creek and the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill, is 36,615 pounds per day. Additional nonpoint sources contribute approximately 12,000 pounds per day in the study area. Thus, the loading from the Georgia-Pacific mill represents a 2.4 percent increase in nitrogen levels on the St. Johns River, a difference that cannot be measured. The largest point source of nutrients in the lower St. Johns River is the Buckman wastewater treatment plant in Duval County. That facility does not have nutrient limits on its discharge permit. Rice Creek does not provide any treatment (as opposed to dilution) for nitrogen in Georgia-Pacific's effluent. A review of probability distributions for nitrogen concentrations upstream and downstream of Rice Creek demonstrated that Rice Creek had no influence on nitrogen levels in the St. Johns River. Phosphorous concentrations from the effluent, if discharged to the St. Johns River, would dilute rapidly, decreasing to .2 milligrams per liter within the water column, five to six feet below the surface, after discharge from the diffuser, below the area in which light is absorbed at the surface of the water column. Chlorophyll-A is a parameter that is typically used as a measure of phytoplankton in the water column. Concentration distributions for chlorophyll-A at Buffalo Point (upstream of Rice Creek) matched concentrations for the same parameter at Racey Point, a station far downstream of Rice Creek. This analysis confirms that the inputs coming into the St. Johns River System from Rice Creek do not have a significant influence on the water quality of the St. Johns River, with respect to nutrients. With a discharge coming directly to the St. Johns River, and with nutrient loading being the same as from Rice Creek, the nutrient loading would not influence the St. Johns River. The Department does not have sufficient information at the present to impose a nutrient limit on Georgia-Pacific. The draft permit accounts for this issue through a re-opener clause which would authorize a limit when that information is available, if such a limit is necessary. Allegations Regarding "Deformities in Fish" Section J of the Petition includes allegations that Georgia-Pacific failed to provide reasonable assurances regarding adverse physiological response in animals under Rule 62-302.530(62), and that Georgia-Pacific has failed to provide reasonable assurances that its discharge will not be mutagenic or teratogenic to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, or to human beings, under Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. Petitioners suggest that the permit cannot be granted as proposed because it lacks effluent limits for (unstated) substances that are alleged to create potential violations of the free-from standard. This argument is barred as a matter of law for the reasons stated in the Order dated February 14, 2002. In addition, based on the following findings, this argument has been rejected because Georgia- Pacific has met the reasonable assurances standard without effluent limits on those unstated (and unknown) substances that are alleged to cause violations of those rules. Petitioners presented evidence that paper mill effluent in general contains chemicals which could cause the masculinization of the females in certain fish species, as well as hormonal effects in males. However, witness Koenig did not offer any testimony that Georgia-Pacific’s effluent, in particular, contained such chemicals. Dr. Koenig had collected no data and had not conducted any field studies in Rice Creek to support his testimony; rather, he relied on articles published by others and provided by Petitioner Linda Young. In agency practice and interpretation of the free- from standard in Rule 62-302.530(62), Florida Administrative Code, the question of whether a change is adverse depends on the overall community or population of that particular species. Tellingly, Petitioners did not present any competent evidence, through Dr. Koenig's testimony or otherwise, that Georgia-Pacific's effluent presents the potential for adverse effects on the overall community or population of any species. Dr. Koenig testified at length from his reading of studies performed by other scientists regarding changes in the hormone levels and gonadosomatic index (the relative weight of gonads) of fish in the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Rice Creek. In his testimony, Dr. Koenig relied on two published articles to address conditions in the vicinity of Rice Creek, both of which were primarily authored by M. Sepulveda. One of those articles showed hormonal changes taking place in a laboratory study where largemouth bass were exposed to mill effluent. That study also showed a change in the gonadosomatic index in the subject fish. Dr. Koenig did not offer any opinion that such changes would be adverse or that they would affect the reproduction of those fish. The other study was a field study with samples of fish at various regions in the vicinity of Rice Creek. This study did not include any fish from Rice Creek, but did include fish from the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, as opposed to reference streams. The study showed lower levels of hormones in fish from the area of that confluence, but also showed similar effects at a reference stream 40 kilometers away. No testimony was presented to support the inference that the effects represented in the two studies were adverse, within the meaning of the free-from rule. Moreover, the data from those two studies were collected in 1996, 1997, and 1998, or before Georgia-Pacific converted its bleach plant to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. Therefore, Dr. Koenig had no data to support any theory that under current effluent conditions, Georgia-Pacific is producing or will produce compounds that would cause any changes of hormone concentrations in fish. With respect to the phenomenon of fish masculinization in Rice Creek, Petitioners' experts had no data to support a competent opinion on this subject. To support his testimony, Dr. Koenig only read one article that purported to demonstrate fish masculinization in 11-Mile Creek and the Fenholloway River, and one letter from an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District [Young Exhibit 8A] that referred to "external anatomical anomalies" near Georgia-Pacific discharge points. The article attached to that letter and included in Young Exhibit 8A addressed data collected in Escambia County, and does not address conditions in Rice Creek. Petitioners attempted to present the theory that the potential for endocrine disruption or fish masculinization resulting from paper mill effluent would violate the free-from standard. As a condition to issuance of the permit, the Department proposes to require Georgia-Pacific to obtain approval of a plan of study to analyze the potential for significant masculinization effects from the discharge. Under the proposed conditions, Georgia-Pacific is required to determine the minimum concentration at which such effects may be detected. By its terms, the proposed permit may be reopened to adjust effluent limitations or monitoring requirements if the masculinization study shows a need for them. Department witness Brooks acknowledged a general concern for endocrine disruption resulting from paper mill effluent. In particular, Mr. Brooks referred to studies which showed that paper mill effluent could cause the elongation of an anal fin in the females of certain fish species. However, Mr. Brooks observed that although this appeared to be a physiologic response, there was no evidence or reason to believe that this effect was an adverse effect. Reports regarding masculinization, that is, the elongation of anal fins in female fish, are suspect because (among other reasons) the studies do not account for variances that would be expected based on the independent variables of sex, age, and growth. In any case, the data from those reports do not demonstrate significant, adverse effects in exposed populations. A critical and unbiased review of the published literature shows that impacts of masculinization are biologically interesting but preliminary in nature. Department witness Maher observed that the masculinization effect occurs naturally, and that the Department's plan of study is intended to determine whether this natural phenomenon becomes problematic or is enhanced by activity at the mill. Initial information reviewed by the Department indicates that the phenomenon is no longer experienced when a mill converts to a chlorine dioxide (ECF) bleaching process, as Georgia-Pacific has done in converting to ECF. According to witness Brooks, the observed effect known as "fish masculinization" is not confirmed to result from endocrine disruption. The Department has concluded that it has reason to be concerned about the potential for fish masculinization. From the Department's viewpoint, it is not clearly understood what is causing this effect. It has been shown that there is a direct relationship between concentration (or dilution) and the observation of those effects. This conclusion is consistent with Dr. Koenig's testimony, which observed a decline in observed effects based on the dosage or concentration of effluent. The Department has reviewed evidence showing that, with dilution, the effect of fish masculinization "go[es] away." In the Department's analysis of the fish masculinization issue in the present permit, the Department is requiring process improvements that would reduce this phenomenon, if it exists, in Rice Creek. In addition, if the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River, the additional dilution would ameliorate the concern regarding fish masculinization, and the phenomenon will "go away." To give an even higher level of assurance that the resource will be protected, the Department is requiring a study to evaluate and confirm that the issue is resolved. The process changes required in the permit, the potential for further dilution in the St. Johns River if it becomes necessary, and the evaluations required in the permit condition render it very likely that any potential for fish masculinization will be mitigated. Thus, to the extent that fish masculinization could be deemed a violation of the free- from standard, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause the masculinization of fish in the St. Johns River. Petitioners did not offer any credible evidence establishing that any specific compound or substance would cause the alleged effects of endocrine disruption or fish masculinization. Indeed, Dr. Koenig acknowledged that he was unable to find in his literature search the mechanism or chemical that is alleged to cause fish masculinization. Likewise, Petitioners were unable to suggest any concentration of that substance which would lead to those alleged effects. Dr. Koenig expressed a belief that chlorinated organic compounds from the paper manufacturing process may be responsible for endocrine disruption. Dr. Koenig also opined that within the general process of paper manufacturing, the bleaching process in particular was a concern. To the extent that Dr. Koenig may have had a concern regarding endocrine disruption from his review of studies performed using data from 1996 through 1998, it is reasonable to conclude that this concern is ameliorated by Georgia-Pacific's conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. There is no evidence to establish a relationship between the presence or absence of dioxin and fish masculinization. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard (and BOD Concerns) In Section K, Petitioners disputed whether Georgia- Pacific had provided reasonable assurance of compliance with the adopted dissolved oxygen standard. The proposed permit contains different permit limits for BOD for winter and summer, because the impacts of discharges are different during those parts of the year. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility discharges mass loadings of BOD at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet discharge standards. A review of effluent data shows that even for the worst period for performance, Georgia-Pacific's effluent was well below the proposed permit limits for BOD. A review of BOD discharges over the period of January 2000 to August 2001 demonstrates a consistent ability of the facility to meet the proposed permit limits, as well as a general trend of improvement that reflects Georgia-Pacific’s upgrade of the treatment system. Georgia-Pacific will meet the minimum standards for dissolved oxygen in mixing zones. With additional process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will also experience additional environmental benefits in the reduction of chemical oxygen demand. N. Dioxin and "Related Compounds" As to dioxin, Petitioners alleged in Section L of their Petition that Georgia-Pacific may discharge dioxin in concentrations that could cause a violation of the free-from standard. The proposed permit includes a permit condition for a plan of study to assess levels of "TCDD" and "TCDF" in fish tissue in the receiving waters. Department witness Brooks was unaware of any regulatory authority to require fish tissue sampling for dioxin. Department engineer Kohn was also uncertain of any regulatory authority for the Department to test for dioxin in fish tissue. Mr. Kohn agreed with the proposition that when a proposed permit condition is not specifically authorized by rule or statute, the condition must be withdrawn if the applicant objects. However, in this case, Georgia-Pacific did not object to the inclusion of a permit limit of .014 picograms per liter of dioxin in its final effluent. As noted above, Georgia-Pacific established that under its current effluent conditions, following conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching, the facility is "non-detect" for dioxin. The Department does not have any adopted standards for fish tissue concentrations. Petitioners presented very little evidence of dioxin concentration in fish tissue following Georgia-Pacific's conversion to ECF bleaching, and they opposed the introduction of such data into evidence. A review of available data shows that there was not a statistically significant difference between the level of bioaccumulation of dioxin in fish tissue in Rice Creek versus a reference creek. The Florida Department of Health has concluded, based on review of prior fish tissue data, that a fish consumption advisory for Rice Creek was not warranted. Total Suspended Solids In Section M, Petitioners have alleged that TSS in the effluent would cause various environmental problems. However, Petitioners did not allege that TSS in the effluent would lead to a violation of water quality standards, and they did not present any accepted testimony or other evidence to support such a theory. There is no adopted water quality standard for TSS. According to the WQBEL Technical Report, effluent levels of TSS are generally comparable to background levels in the St. Johns River. The primary wastewater clarifier is designed to remove fiber or other settleable solids from the effluent before it travels to the secondary treatment system. Total suspended solids in Georgia-Pacific's effluent are primarily derived from biota in the treatment system, rather than fiber from the industrial process. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for TSS. The facility reliably discharges TSS at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet proposed effluent limits. A review of discharge data for TSS demonstrates that Georgia-Pacific would perform in full compliance with the proposed permit limits. Petitioners presented no evidence to the contrary. Petitioners likewise presented no evidence to quantify any impacts from TSS. Color, the Transparency Standard, and Related Issues Petitioners have also alleged that the color in Georgia-Pacific's effluent would lead to nuisance conditions in violation of Rule 62-302.500(1)(a). However, they did not allege any potential violation of the one parameter traditionally associated with effluent color: the Department's transparency standard. Elevated levels of color in the effluent reduces the ability of light to penetrate into the water column, with potential effects on the growth of aquatic plants. This is translated into a "compensation point," that is, the water depth at which the light level reaches one percent. The state transparency standard prohibits a discharge from causing a decrease in the compensation point of more than ten percent, relative to natural background. The rate of decrease of light within a water column is related to increased color levels. Analysis performed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants shows that a ten percent change in compensation depth corresponds to a seventeen percent increase in color above natural background levels. Under the proposed permit, color was used as a surrogate, or alternative measure, for compliance with the transparency standard. Color was not used as a surrogate for any parameter other than transparency. Georgia-Pacific will, with additional process improvements, see additional environmental benefits in reducing the color of its effluent. For the purpose of the application, Georgia-Pacific's modeling analysis assumed that based on process improvements, its effluent would have a color of 1202 pcu. EPA's technical team had opined that Georgia- Pacific would, with process improvements, achieve a reduction in color to 500 pcu. Georgia-Pacific had opined that the improvements would achieve a color of 1202 pcu. Department witness Owen opined that the color reduction would be in a range between those two figures. Petitioners did not present any contrary evidence as to the ability of additional process improvements to reduce effluent color. Accordingly, using the most conservative (least optimistic) figure, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that before a discharge to the St. Johns River would be authorized, it will reduce the color of its effluent to 1202 pcu. The proposed permit takes into account the potential that Georgia-Pacific's process improvements will achieve greater improvements in color than anticipated. Under the proposed permit, the Department would reduce the size of the proposed mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific demonstrates that the color of its effluent is lower than projected. The modeling analysis further demonstrates that based on a discharge to the St. Johns River, assuming an effluent color of 1202 pcu, the change in compensation depth is greater than ten percent in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser. A 734-meter mixing zone for transparency would be required for a discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River. The required area for such a mixing zone is 64,000 square meters. Antidegradation Review In Section P, Petitioners have generally alleged that the Department failed to conduct a proper antidegradation analysis. More specifically, they alleged that the proposed discharge would reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them. Because Georgia-Pacific presently discharges to Rice Creek, and because a separate relief mechanism (the Administrative Order) authorizes the discharge to Rice Creek, it appears that the antidegradation issues relate solely to the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River. If the relocation had resulted in degradation of the receiving water, the Department would have regulatory authority in its Rule 62-4.242(1)(c) to consider whether Georgia-Pacific could minimize its discharge through other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse. However, Petitioners failed to allege in their Petition that the Department misapplied that regulatory authority. Moreover, under Department practice, when a new discharge or relocation of a discharge will result in an environmental benefit, it is not necessary to conduct a review of other discharge options. The Department undertakes an antidegradation analysis in, among other scenarios, cases where a discharge will result in achievement of minimum water quality standards for a given designated use but will lead to an incremental lowering of water quality. The purpose of this analysis is to assure that the societal benefits of the discharge outweigh the cost of that incremental lowering. The proposed permit will not lead to the increase in discharge of any parameter, and the permit is more stringent and adds additional parameters or limits. In addition, there is a trend of improved performance for the treatment system. In the present case, the Department has concluded that the proposed project will result in a significant improvement in water quality by the reduction of pollutants associated with exceedences of water quality standards in Rice Creek. Regardless of whether the discharge remains in Rice Creek or is relocated to the St. Johns River, the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will lead to an improvement in water quality as opposed to a degradation of water quality. Based on improvements with respect to specific conductance parameters, the ability to relocate the discharge into the middle of the St. Johns River where better mixing will occur (relative to the confluence of Rice Creek), and anticipated improvements in grass beds, the proposed pipeline will lead to a net environmental benefit in the St. Johns River and Rice Creek. The project as set forth in the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will be clearly in the public interest because it will result in full achievement of water quality standards and full compliance with the designated use of the receiving water body. The project will result in a substantial reduction in pollutant loading in Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, regardless of the whether the discharge will be located in Rice Creek or in the St. Johns River. The Department adequately evaluated other discharge locations, alternative treatment, and disposal alternatives. Studies, including a land application pilot project, demonstrated that land application was not feasible based upon impacts to groundwater resources. In their Petition, Petitioners did not dispute the Department's analysis of those factors under applicable rules. Given these considerations, it is found that Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will meet water quality standards, and it is evident that Georgia-Pacific will not reduce the quality of the St. Johns River below its Class III designation. Further, the proposed discharge will be clearly in the public interest for the purpose of antidegradation analysis. Further, the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River is important to and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62-302.100 and 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Instead, the proposed discharge would provide a benefit to fish and wildlife, and their habitats. No persuasive evidence was presented that the proposed discharge to the St. Johns River would adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Indeed, the record demonstrates a beneficial effect as to those factors. The proposed discharge has not been shown to be inconsistent with the applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM plan). Rather, the evidence shows that the proposed discharge would promote the implementation of the applicable SWIM plan. Monitoring Issues Section Q in the Petition generally challenged the adequacy of proposed monitoring requirements. As to this issue, the monitoring conditions imposed in the proposed permit are sufficient to ensure compliance with the proposed permit. Petitioner Young's witness Gilbert agreed that the proposed monitoring conditions were adequate to determine the result of process changes, that the proposed monitoring conditions were comprehensive, and that those conditions were beyond what the Department normally required. The Department does not propose to engage in water quality sampling at the end of the diffuser or at the edge of the mixing zone because of the technical difficulties associated with such an endeavor. Instead, the process for determining compliance is to determine the condition of the effluent and simulate water quality conditions of the receiving water body under low-flow conditions (when the river would be most vulnerable to pollution discharges). Such an approach is more protective because it eliminates variables that may not be representative of worst-case conditions. The evidence shows that the size of Georgia- Pacific's facility renders it impracticable for Georgia- Pacific to compromise the integrity of sampling results, as suggested by Petitioners. Flow Limitations In their Petition, Petitioners also contended that the proposed agency action violates Rules 62-4.240(3)(a) and 62-620.310(9)(a) by failing to specify the volume of discharge or flows. Under Department practice, flow must be specified but is not necessarily limited. Flow was adequately specified in the proposed permit, where the facility is described as 40 MGD wastewater treatment facility with a 22 MGD expected average flow. Volume limits are indirectly set through the establishment of a mixing zone and through mass loading limits in the permit, such as the loading limits for BOD and suspended solids. When flow is increased and the concentration of the effluent remains constant, the flow would be limited by the mass limits in the permit. Furthermore, the pipe and diffuser will have a hydraulic limitation, that is, a physical limitation on the amount that can physically be discharged. The pipeline and diffuser are hydraulically limited to 60 MGD based on the current design. Over a ten-year period, Georgia-Pacific has shown a trend toward reduced effluent flow. For example, in 1991, Georgia-Pacific discharged just under 40,000,000 gallons per day (GPD). In 2001, the discharge was less than 24,000,000 GPD. As a result of water conservation measures, Georgia- Pacific has been able to achieve a substantial reduction in effluent flow even when it experienced increased storm water flow into the treatment system. Because of stormwater inputs into the treatment system, it is very difficult to set a flow limit on the discharge from a pulp and paper mill. Indeed, the Department does not typically impose volume limits on NPDES permits for pulp and paper mills. Where volume or flow limits are imposed on pulp and paper mills, they are necessary in order to assure compliance with a specific standard. The Administrative Order Georgia-Pacific has submitted plans and a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. No contrary evidence was presented, and no alternative construction schedule was proposed by Petitioners. In assessing a schedule to achieve compliance, the Department considered the time necessary to construct additional improvements as well as the reasonableness of the time period in light of Georgia-Pacific's capital investment. As part of this analysis, the Department also considered Georgia-Pacific's commitment to go beyond what they were legally required to do in environmental upgrades. The schedule of compliance is reasonable, given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required of Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific needs permission to continue its discharge to Rice Creek for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, and operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. The time period described in the Administrative Order will enable Georgia-Pacific to maximize the operation of the process improvements in order to determine if the discharge can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. Given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required in the permit and Administrative Order, the schedule of compliance set forth in the Administrative Order is reasonable. There is no present, reasonable alternative means of disposing of wastewater other than to discharge it into waters of the State. In their Petition, Petitioners contested the Department's general antidegradation analysis but did not allege that any alternative means of disposal were improperly overlooked. The Department does not have specific regulatory authority to require facilities such as Georgia-Pacific to consider re-use as part of its antidegradation analysis, as it does with domestic waste discharges. Nonetheless, the Department did look at re-use and land application and determined that they were not feasible alternatives. Although it was not specifically required to do so by rule, Georgia- Pacific had exhausted every reasonable means to re-use (rather than discharge) water from its facility. Under earlier authorizations, Georgia-Pacific was not required to achieve standards for color, conductance, and chronic toxicity in Rice Creek. The granting of an operation permit will be in the public interest. This is because Putnam County will suffer an adverse economic impact if the facility is shut down and there will be net environmental benefits achieved through compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Administrative Order. The Permit requires Georgia-Pacific to submit a written report to the Department if it appears that a mixing zone is needed for chronic whole effluent toxicity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order (1) issuing proposed permit number FL0002763 to Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as set forth in Department Exhibit 175, and with the change in the permit conditions as requested in Georgia-Pacific Exhibit 102 and proposed by the Department during the hearing, and (2) approving Administrative Order No. 039-NE as set forth in Department Exhibit 176. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, No. 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Jessica C. Landman, Esquire 1200 New York Avenue, Northwest Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Terry Cole, Esquire Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Teri L. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Thomas R. Gould, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. is entitled to an environmental resource permit to facilitate the construction of the Betty Jones Spa on property adjacent to property owned by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1998, Respondent HBJ Investments, Inc. (Applicant) filed an application (Application) with the South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP). The Application is for a Standard General (minor systems) ERP. The Application states that the proposed surface water management system is to serve a 11,564 square foot health spa with associated infrastructure improvements, such as parking, utilities, landscaping, and a stormwater detention facility. Section H of the Application responds to form questions that are intended to determine whether an application meets the requirements of a standard general ERP for a minor surface water system. Among the threshold requirements is that the proposed discharges from the site "will meet State water quality standards, and the surface water management system will meet the applicable technical criteria for stormwater management in the Basis of Review." Another threshold requirement is that the proposed activities will not cause significant adverse impacts individually or cumulatively. The Application states that the water quality treatment system will be on-line detention with effluent filtration. The Application and related documents describe the system in greater detail. The system consists of drains, inlets, a swale, an underground vault to provide effluent filtration through a sand filter and perforated pipe, an internal oil and grease skimmer, a control box, and a 15-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe providing outfall from the vault. By Notice of Final Agency Action for Approval dated February 4, 1999, the District proposed the issuance of a "Standard General for Minor Surface Water Management Systems" ERP for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed system (Permit). Permit Specific Condition 2 requires: "The discharges from this system shall meet state water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62-302 and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C., for class waters equivalent to the receiving waters." Permit Specific Condition 8 requires, for vault systems, that the system become dry within 72 hours after a rainfall event. Permit Specific Condition 9 requires the operation and maintenance entity to submit inspection reports for inspections to be performed every 18 months. Permit Specific Condition 10 requires a water quality monitoring program for systems, such as the proposed system, using an internal oil and grease skimmer. This condition obligates HBJ to take three samples during each of the first two annual rainy seasons following the commencement of operation of the system. The monitoring must take place immediately after rainfall events of sufficient magnitude to cause a discharge from the outfall structure. If the discharged water does not meet water quality standards for oil and grease, as established by Rule 62.302.510(3)(k), Florida Administrative Code, then the permittee must alter the system to attain compliance for this water quality parameter. The subject parcel is bounded by Fourth Avenue South on the north, First Street South on the east, Second Street South on the west, and an unnamed alley on the south. This site is just south of Al Lang Field. In its present state, the parcel is nearly entirely pervious surface. Some of the stormwater flowing onto the parcel percolates into the soils, and the remainder flows into City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewers, from which it is carried about two city blocks to Tampa Bay, where it is discharged. The parcel was formerly used for single-family residential housing, but is now mostly cleared. The runoff from the site presently carries mostly sediments. After the proposed construction, 79 percent of the parcel would consist of impervious surface. Although small areas of the developed parcel might remain vegetated, and thus add nutrients into the runoff, the primary change in the runoff will consist of the addition of automobile-related contaminants, including, but not limited to, oil and grease. HBJ's engineer designed the proposed surface water management system to treat the first one-half inch of stormwater runoff. The engineer's report notes, in a letter dated November 13, 1998, that siltation in the vault reduces storage volume, so it is "required that cleaning be done every six (6) months." The report suggests the removal of grass clippings from the parking area, so that they are not transported to the retention vault. The report suggests that the underdrain system should be backflushed periodically, and the control structure should be checked monthly and all debris cleared. In general, the system would collect runoff from the roof downspouts and parking area. The system would provide treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff by capturing it in the vault, where it would filter through a layer of several cubic feet of sand before entering a perforated pipe leading to the City stormwater sewer. Runoff from rainfall in excess of the first 1/2 inch would receive little, if any, treatment. It is implicit that the first 1/2 inch of rainfall contains the first flush of contaminants from impervious surfaces. Nothing in the record specifies the efficacy of treatment provided by this standard, although it obviously is less than 100 percent efficient because of the higher standard imposed upon systems discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). However, a pre- and post-development analysis of the runoff from the subject parcel would reveal an unknown additional volume of runoff from the developed site, due to the replacement of pervious surface with impervious surface. It is unclear whether the developed site would generate a reduced volume of sediments in this increased volume of runoff. Although little vegetated surface would exist post-development, the record does not reveal the extent to which the pre-development pervious area fails to capture the sediments prior to their entering the City stormwater system. More problematic are the automobile-related contaminants, such as oil and grease, that will be introduced into the runoff by the developed site. Presumably, the runoff from the undeveloped site contains few, if any, such contaminants. Thus, any automobile-related contaminants discharged from the surface water management system would likely be an increase from the amount of such contaminants presently discharged from the site. The runoff from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system and would be released in the nearby Tampa Bay. The record does not disclose the stormwater sewer line transporting the discharge, nor the outfall of the line into Tampa Bay. By stipulation, the parties agreed that Tampa Bay is an OFW and that discharge from the developed site would enter the City of Saint Petersburg stormwater sewer system. Tampa Bay is classified as Class II waters, which are approved for shellfish harvesting. The record does not disclose the point of discharge of the City stormwater line that would receive discharge from the developed site. However, the proximity of the site to Tampa Bay strongly suggests that the outfall would be in Tampa Bay, and it is only slightly less probable that the outfall would be at a point in the bay in the immediate vicinity of the site. The record suggests that the waters of Tampa Bay likely to receive the discharge from the site are impaired. For example, water quality conditions mandated the closing of "Lower Tampa Bay" to shellfish harvesting, for an unstated period of time, effective at sunset on July 5, 1999. Also, the Department of Environmental Protection listed two bayous in the immediate vicinity of the site as noncompliant with federal water quality standards due to excessive coliform bacteria counts and nutrients and insufficient levels of dissolved oxygen. The Basis of Review (BOR) is a document adopted by the District. It contains specific "criteria" for permitting. However, as BOR Section 1.3 explains, the goal of these criteria is to meet District water resource objectives, and the criteria are "flexible." Alternative methods of meeting "overall objectives" may be acceptable, depending upon the "magnitude of specific or cumulative impacts." The criteria, which are flexible, are the means by which the District assures that it meets its objectives, which are not flexible. BOR Section 3.1.0 recognizes that "a wide array of biological, physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland or other surface water community. Maintenance of water quality standards in applicable wetlands and other surface waters is critical to their ability to provide many of these functions." BOR Section 3.1.0 elaborates: "It is the intent of the Governing Board [of the District] that the criteria in subsections 3.2 through 3.2.8 be implemented in a manner which achieves a programmatic goal and a project permitting goal of no net loss of wetlands or other surface water functions." BOR Section 3.1.1 requires that an applicant provide "reasonable assurance" of several things. BOR Section 3.1.1(a) requires that "a regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.2)." BOR Section 3.1.1(c) provides that: a regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters . . . set forth in sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(e), F.A.C.). BOR Section 3.1.1(d) provides that "a regulated activity . . . located in close proximity to Class II waters . . . will comply with the additional criteria in subsection 3.2.5 (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(c), F.A.C.)." BOR Section 3.1.l(f) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.7)." BOR Section 3.1.1(g) provides that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters . . . (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(b), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.8)." BOR Section 3.2.4 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. . . . The following requirements are in addition to the water quality requirements found in Chapter 5." BOR Section 3.2.4.2(c) provides that the applicant must address the long-term water quality impacts of a proposed system, including "prevention of any discharge or release of pollutants from the system that will cause water quality standards to be violated." BOR Section 3.2.5 provides: The special value and importance of shellfish harvesting waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shell fish is recognized by the District. In accordance with section 3.1.1.(d), the District shall: (b) deny a permit for a regulated activity in any class of waters where the location of the system is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the regulated activity will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. BOR Section 3.2.7 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource" as described in this section. However, this section explicitly disregards negligible or remotely related secondary impacts. BOR Section 3.2.8 provides that an applicant must provide "reasonable assurance" that "a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters " BOR Section 4.2 limits off-site discharge "to amounts which will not cause adverse off-site impacts." For a proposed activity within an open drainage basin, as is the subject proposed activity, the allowable discharge is (presumably the greatest of) any amount determined in previous District permits, the legally allowable discharge at the time of the permit application, or historic discharge. Historic discharge is the peak rate at which runoff leaves a parcel of land by gravity under existing site conditions. BOR Section 5.1 requires that proposed discharges meet applicable state water quality standards. This chapter of the BOR requires that proposed systems satisfy certain quantitative criteria, depending on the type of water treatment system. However, BOR Section 5.1 warns: in certain instances a design meeting those standards may not result in compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. Unless an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that a design will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards, the District may apply more stringent design and performance standards than are otherwise required by this chapter. Projects designed to the criteria found in this section shall be presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the state water quality standards referenced above. . . . BOR Section 5.2 sets quantitative criteria for various types of surface water management systems. The subject system is a detention, on-line treatment system. BOR Section 1.7.5 defines "detention" as the "delay of storm runoff prior to discharge into receiving waters." BOR Section 1.7.28 defines "on-line treatment system" as a "dual purpose system that collects project runoff for both water quality and water quantity requirements. Water quality volumes are recovered through percolation and evaporation while water quantity volumes are recovered through a combination of percolation, evaporation, and surface discharge." BOR Section 5.2.b applies to "[d]etention with effluent filtration system (manmade underdrains)." BOR Section 5.2.b.1 provides that proposed activities draining less than 100 acres "shall treat the runoff from . . . the first one-half inch runoff." BOR Section 5.2.b.6 adds: "Maintenance of filter includes proper disposal of spent filter material." BOR Section 5.2.c applies to "on-line treatment system[s]." This section also requires the treatment of the first one-half inch of runoff. However, BOR Section 5.2.e provides: Projects discharging directly into Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) shall be required to provide treatment for a volume 50 percent more than required for the selected treatment system . . .. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and would not cause flooding. In terms of water quantity, the proposed system is designed to meet the requirements of the ten-year storm. The subject site is a short distance from Tampa Bay, and, as already noted, it is very likely that the runoff discharges into Tampa Bay at a location not far from the subject site. Thus, water quantity and flooding are irrelevant to this case. However, Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by nonwetland surface waters and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The receiving waters of the discharge from the subject site are Class II waters that are OFW. However, these waters are also impaired sufficiently as to be in violation of certain federal water quality standards and to require the closure, at least at times, of shellfish harvesting. There are three deficiencies in the proposed permit. First, it does not specify, in clear and enforceable language, an inspection and maintenance program, which includes the undertaking by the Applicant to backwash the system at specified intervals, to replace the sand filtration medium at specified intervals, to dispose of the sand filtration medium so that the captured contaminants do not reenter waters of the state, to monitor the water discharged from the oil and grease skimmer at specified intervals following the first two years' monitoring, and generally to take any necessary action to correct deficiencies uncovered from inspections. Second, the treatment of the first 1/2 inch of runoff is insufficient for the system, which is discharging directly into an OFW. BOR Section 5.2.e raises this standard to 3/4 inch. Direct discharges requires the identification of the first receiving waters. Receiving waters are waters of the state that are classifiable as Class I-V waters. Receiving waters thus do not include waters in a stormwater sewer pipe, which are not waters of the state nor are they classifiable. Water quality determinations often require comparison of the quality of the discharged water with quality of the receiving waters. The off-site piping of the discharged water does not preclude such comparison. In such case, the analysis extends to the first receiving waters into which the pipe empties. The District's argument to the contrary invites circumvention of those provisions enacted and promulgated for the protection of OFWs. For example, several owners of land abutting an OFW could establish a jointly owned stormwater sewer line so that the point of comparison for their discharge would be the waters in the pipe rather than the OFW. Third, Applicant failed to submit a plan or propose a procedure demonstrating that the proposed activity would not have a negative effect on the Class II waters of Tampa Bay and would not result in violations of water quality standards in these Class II waters. The District failed to determine the outfall of the discharge from the subject site, so it failed to enforce the requirement of the plan required by BOR 3.2.5 for the protection of the special value of Class II waters. Although required to account for cumulative impacts, the plan will necessarily reflect the characteristics of the site--e.g., 1.6 acres contributing largely automobile-based contaminants and not nutrients--and the characteristics of the receiving waters--e.g., Tampa Bay is vast and relatively impaired, though, in the vicinity of the subject site, more likely due to excessive nutrients.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the ERP application of HBJ Investments, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 John R. Thomas Wyckoff & Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 102 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael Jacobs Director, Legal Affairs 25 Second Street North, Suite 160 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701 Anthony J. Mutchler Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James C. Dougherty owns property known as Buccaneer Point, which is a peninsula on the western side of Key Largo, Florida. This property is also known as Buccaneer Point Estates, and is a residential subdivision. On June 26, 1979, the Petitioner individually and as a trustee, applied to the Respondent for a permit to conduct dredging and filling activities at the aforementioned property, in particular, the project contemplated dredging access channels in Florida Bay and Buttonwood Sound and the connection of two existing inland lakes on the property site to those water bodies. After review, the Respondent denied the permit request and asserted permit jurisdiction in keeping with Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and associated regulatory provisions found in the Florida Administrative Code. Having been denied the permit, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to consider the matters in dispute and a hearing was conducted on the dates alluded to in this Recommended Order. The hearing was conducted in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The denial of the permit request was in the form of a letter of intent to deny dated May 27, 1980. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. Following the receipt of the letter of intent to deny, the Petitioner commenced a series of revisions to the project leading to the present permit request which is generally described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. If the project were allowed, it would call for the dredging of access channels in Florida Bay and Buttonwood Sound, those channels to be 75 feet long and -5 feet N.G.V.D., with side slopes of 1:3. Additional inland canals would be dredged to connect the access channels with the interior lakes, the north channel being 100 feet wide -6 feet N.G.V.D. and 400 feet long, and the south canal being 62 feet wide -6 feet N.G.V.D., and 225 feet long. Side slopes of the canals would be 1:3. The project also intends the connection of the two interior lakes by the excavation of a 162-foot long by 50-foot wide connection or plug at a depth of -5 feet N.G.V.D. The material from this excavation of the plug would be used as ton soil on the uplands. Finally, the permit proposes the shoaling of the North Lake on the property to -15 feet N.G.V.D. by the use of clean limerock fill. Through its opposition to the project, the Respondent has indicated concerns that bay grass beds would be damaged over the long term by boats as a result of the dredging of proposed channels and canals; a concern about increased BOD demands which would lower water quality following the long-term accumulation of organic materials in the channels. The Department also contends that construction of the south channel would destroy productive grass beds and "vegetated littoral shallows," which now serve as a nursery and feeding ground for numerous invertebrates. Respondent believes that the north channel would eliminate an area of mangrove wetlands which filters nutrients and toxic materials and serves as a nursery and feeding ground for estuarine organisms and wading birds. The Respondent also feels that the north channel would disturb a stable mangrove humus peat band, which now supports large numbers of invertebrates and which band extends along the northern shoreline of Buccaneer Point. The Department, in discussing the acceptability of the permit, has expressed concern that bottoms adjacent to the north channel would be harmed by increased erosion and sedimentation of the disturbed mangrove peat. Respondent has further stated that water in both interior lakes is now in violation of water quality standards and that water quality data shows high oxygen demands. The Respondent has put at issue the Petitioner's hydrographic report on the flow-through lake system, citing what it believes to be errors in the report. The Respondent has expressed specific concern about water quality standards as set forth in the following rules: Rule 17-3.121(5), Florida Administrative Code, Bacteriological Quality; Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code, Biological Integrity; Rule 17-3.061(2)(b) Florida Administrative Code, BOD; Rule 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code, Dissolved Oxygen; Rule 17-3.121(20), Florida Administrative Code, Nutrients; Rule 17-3.061(2)(j) Florida Administrative Code, Oils and Greases; Rule 17- 3.061(2)(1), Florida Administrative Code, Phenolic Compounds; Rule 17-3.121(28), Florida Administrative Code, Transparency; and Rule 17-3.061(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Substances. The Respondent indicated that it felt the project would be adverse to the public interest because it would cause erosion, shoaling, or creation of stagnated areas of water, would interfere with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife or other natural resources, and would result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds or marine productivity, including destruction of natural marine habitats or grass flats suitable as nurseries or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils which are suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. The project was also thought by the Department to be not in the public interest because it would reduce the capability of the habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population because it would impair the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. The Petitioner has employed hydrographic engineers to conduct a study of the flushing characteristics of the system, should the access channels, canals and interior connections be allowed. It is an undertaking on the part of the Petitioner dealing with physical characteristics of the waterway and the forcing conditions in and around the site, which include tidal flow, wind-driven flow and mean sea level changes. The two State water bodies at the site, Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay, are separated by the project site and other islands at the northern tip of the project. The effects of this separation changes the arrival time of high tide at the northern and southern extremities of the project site promoting a mean sea level surface difference between Buttonwood Sound and Florida Bay. The sea level difference or "head" assists in generating flow in the sense of moving the water from the high to the low elevation. To gain an exact measure of the hydraulic head, tidal gauges were placed at the northern entrance channel and in the southern entrance channel. The use of these gauges over a period of time allowed the determination of the spring and neap tide conditions. The "head" differences finally arrived at by calculations by the Petitioner's experts assisted in the creation of a mathematical model to determine flows in the water system. This lead to an estimate of flushing time of 2 1/2 days. See Petitioner's Exhibits 7-9,admitted into evidence. In turn, an estimation was made that approximately half of the flow which presently flows through Baker Cut, at the project site, would be diverted to the waterway system if constructed and this in conjunction with other calculations led to the conclusion that the flushing time was 3 to 4 days as opposed to the 2 1/2 days arrived at by the mathematical system. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10, admitted into evidence. The estimate of 3 to 4 days was the more current study and was premised upon conditions of an adverse south, southeast wind which would cause the water to move north, absent current conditions, as opposed to this south direction which was the normal direction of movement. The Petitioner also examined the flushing characteristics of similar projects which were not as favorable because of a lack of "head" differences which assisted in the flow of the water. Based upon the results of the studies conducted by Petitioner's experts, the flushing time of the system is found to be 3 to 4 days. While there is some correlation between a short flushing time for a water system and the water quality within that system, examination of other channel systems in the Florida Keys indicates that short flushing times do not always cause the waters to meet State water quality standards. For that reason, water quality considerations must be dealt with bearing in mind the physical characteristics of the system extant and as proposed using flushing time as a part of the equation. Those specific water quality criteria will be addressed in subsequent portions of these findings. Tests conducted by the parties dealt with the amount of dissolved oxygen in waters at the project site, and revealed dissolved oxygen levels of less than 4 parts per million, even when testing at depths less than 15 feet. This condition is one which is not unusual for natural water systems which have remarkable stability and are not the subject of flow or flushing, as example in mangrove forests. If the system were open, dissolved oxygen levels in the interior lakes would improve, though not necessarily to a level which no longer violates State water quality considerations related to dissolved oxygen levels. On the related subject of BOD or biochemical oxygen demand, that demand placed on oxygen in the water biochemicals or organic materials, the system as it exists and as proposed does not appear to cause excessive BOD, notwithstanding an 8 to 12 foot wide band of peat substrate in the area of the North Lake wall. Although the biochemical oxygen demand related to the layer of peat in the lake's system in its present state presents no difficulty, if the water system were open this peat layer would cause a significant amount of loading of biochemical oxygen demand in the lake system and eventually the surrounding water bodies. On the question of nutrients in the marine system, reflected by levels of phosphorus and nitrogen or variations impact the compensation point for the North Lake. In fact, there would be improvement in transparency or clarity for both lakes. Nonetheless, in the short run, the turbidity problems associated with the placement of clean limerock fill over the flocculent peat material would violate the transparency standard in that location. On the subject of toxic substances, meaning synthetic organics or heavy metals in sea water, tests by the Petitioner at the project site and comparison site demonstrated that those substances would not exceed the criterion related to those materials. On the subject of fecal coliform bacteria, water quality samples were taken at the project site and a comparison site. The residences now at the project site and those at a development known as Private Park use septic tanks. In view of the porous nature of the limerock foundation upon which the residences are built and in which the septic tanks are placed, the possibility exists for horizontal movement of the leachate into surrounding waters of the project site and the landlocked lakes; however, this movement is not dependent upon the opening of a flow-through system at the project site. Moreover, tests that were conducted in the comparison site and project site reveal less than one fecal coliform bacterium per 100 milliliters and if the system were open, the circulation in the lakes would lower the residence time of leachate. In describing the habitat afforded by the interior lakes as they now exist, the North Lake does not afford animals or fish the opportunity to colonize, because there are no areas where they may disappear into the lake. This limits the opportunity for habitat to those animals who have their entire life cycle in a landlocked system, and necessarily of those substances in the water, water quality standards for nutrients will not be substantially altered by the proposed project. In other words, the project will not cause an imbalance in natural aquatic flora or fauna population, by way of advent of phytoplankton bloom leading to eutrophy. The nutrient samples taken in the interior lakes demonstrate normal sea water levels and those levels outside the lake were low and the flow-through system is not expected to raise nutrient levels. Sampling for oils and greases in the comparison waterways where residential development had occurred in the lakes and ambient waters at the site, did not indicate problems with those substances in the sense of violation of State water quality standards. Sampling for phenolic compounds at the comparison sites and at the lakes and ambient waters at the project site showed less than .001 micrograms per liter in each instance of the sample. There are no sources or potential sources of phenols at the site. On the question of the State water quality dealing with transparency, that standard requires that the level of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity shall not be reduced by more than ten percent (10 percent) compared to natural background levels. The compensation point for photosynthetic activity is the level at which plant and animal respiration and photosynthetic activity are equal. In static state, the Petitioner's analysis of this criterion revealed that the North Lake compensation point would be below 15 feet and the South Lake would have no compensation point, due to its shallow nature. In the long run, the opening of the proposed connections in the planned development together with the shoaling, would not negatively excludes animals with a long larva stage. Examination of comparison sites pointed out the possibility for colonization at the project site should the waterways be opened. Specific testing that was done related to colonization by fishes, in particular sport and commercial fishes, demonstrated that those species increased in richness, density and diversity if a system was opened by channels and canals. In addition, the comparison of this project site and systems similar to that contemplated by the open waterway indicated that sea grasses would increase after a period of years if the system were open. Sampling was conducted in substrates to gain some understanding of the effect of the proposed project on the Shannon Weaver Index, i.e., whether there would be a reduction by less than 75 percent of established background levels. Although there would be no problem with the biological integrity standard related to South Lake and its waterway, the North Lake and waterway system could be expected to be in violation of that index due to the present circumstance as contrasted with that circumstance at the point when water flowed through. If the waters were opened to the project site, marine biological systems on the outside of the interior lakes would be given an opportunity to use those lakes as a nursery ground or spawning site for fishes, a refuge in cold weather conditions and a site for predators to find prey. If the lakes were opened to the outlying areas, alga, grass populations, mobile invertebra, plankton and other forms of life could utilize the interior lakes. In the area where the north canal or inland canal would be placed are found red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves (Avicennia germinas) . The mangroves are frequently inundated by tidal waters and are the most mature and productive of the mangroves which are found at the property site. Some of those mangroves are located waterward of the line of mean high water and would be removed if the project is permitted. The mangroves at the project site provide filtration of sediments and nutrients contained in stormwater runoff from adjacent upland areas, as well as from tidal flows. This filtering process is an essential part of the maintenance of water quality in the adjacent open bay estuarine or marine system. Nutrients in the tidal waters, as well as runoff waters, are settled out and in the sediments retained by the mangrove roots and are transformed into vegetative leaf matter by the mangroves as they live and grow. The root systems of the mangroves and their associated vegetation provide stabilization of estuarine shoreline sediments and attenuation of storm-generated tides. These mangrove wetlands provide unique and irreplaceable habitats for a wide variety of marine as well as upland wildlife species. The mangroves also contribute leaf or detrital matter to the surrounding State waters and estuarine system in the form of decayed leaf litter. This organic component forms the basis of the marine food chain and is used directly for food by a variety of marine organisms, including small fish. Commercial and sports fish species feed directly on the mangrove detritous or on the fish or other forms of marine life that feed on that detrital matter. In removing the mangroves, the applicant causes a loss of the function which those plants provide in the way of filtration and the promotion of higher water quality and causes biological impact on marine organisms, to include sports and commercial fishes. In the area of the north access channel, there exists a band of stable mangrove peat which is 50 to 75 feet wide and one to two feet thick. Waterward of this expanse of humus is located a sandy bottom vegetated by turtle grass and other sea grasses and alga. The turtle grass in the area of the proposed north channel serves as a nursery and feeding ground for a rich and diverse aquatic community, including species of oysters, clams and other mollusks, as well as commercial and sports fish. This grass also filters and assimilates contaminants in the water column and serves to stabilize sediments to prevent turbidity. Dredging would destroy the turtle grass beds and their functions. These impacts on mangroves and sea grasses are significant matters, notwithstanding the fact that the possibility exists that mangroves would repopulate in the area of the north channel and North Lake, together with the repopulation of sea grasses in that area after a period of years. The south waterway would cause the removal of certain sea grasses, which could be expected to revegetate. Moreover, at present, the sea grasses in this area are sparse due to the shallow waters in that area, which waters are too warm for sea grasses to thrive. Construction of the access channel would result in increased erosion and sedimentation based upon boat wake wash and in turn allow for adverse impact on the biologically productive bay bottom. Water quality degradation can be anticipated because of the erosion and leaching of dissolved particulate material from the disturbed peat band at the shoreline and into shallow waters in the bay and into the North Lake. Transition from the inland channels to the bay side access channels at the north and south will be box cut at the mean high water line and in view of the fact that the inland channels are 100 feet wide and the bay side access channels are only 50 feet wide, erosion can be expected, causing turbidity.
The Issue Whether Respondents have violated Chapter 403, Florida Statutes by dredge and fill activities at Sampson Lake, Bradford County, Florida, and should therefore be subject to corrective action and costs, as set forth in Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, dated March 4, 1982. This case arises from Petitioner's filing of a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action against Respondent Dudley P. Hardy on March 4, 1982, alleging that he conducted dredge and fill activities on property which he owned adjacent to Sampson Lake without obtaining a departmental permit for such activities. The notice further alleged that such activities created a stationary installation reasonably expected to be a source of pollution, and sought to have the Respondent take corrective action by restoring the affected area, and also to nay investigative costs, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent Hardy responded to the Notice of Violation and therein requested an informal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. He also averred that he only owned a one-half interest in the subject property, and that the other one-half interest was owned by J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. Based upon Petitioner's request, a formal hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, was scheduled for July 14-15, 1982, but pursuant to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, the hearing was rescheduled for August 12- 13, 1982, by Order dated May 24, 1982. Petitioner thereafter amended its notice of violation to include J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom as Respondents in the proceeding as indispensable parties. By Order dated July 7, 1982, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend was granted. By Order of Consolidation dated April 28, 1982, this case was consolidated with five other cases involving similar activities at Sampson Lake. (DOAH Cases Nos. 82-907and 02-909 - 82-912) However, prior to the scheduled hearing, counsel for Petitioner advised the Hearing Officer that the other cases had been resolved by consent orders. At the hearing, Respondent J. D. Odom, Jr. appeared without counsel and was advised of his rights in a Chapter 120 administrative proceeding. He acknowledged his understanding of such rights and elected to proceed without counsel. Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted ten exhibits. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted two exhibits. After the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent J. Odom submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer, dated August 17, 1982, which enclosed a copy of a survey which had been previously received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and photographs which had not been received in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike these matters, and the motion is hereby partially granted. The additional photographs presented by Respondent can not be taken into consideration in this Recommended Order because they were not admitted in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner's post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are deemed either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact. In like manner, the statements made by Respondent Odom in his post-hearing letter that are unrelated to the photographs have been fully considered.
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed, dated March 12, 1980, Sampson Lake Properties, Inc. conveyed a parcel of the land located in Bradford County, Florida to Respondent, Dudley P. Hardy. The property is bordered by Sampson Lake on the west and Rowell Canal on the south. By warranty deed, dated July 10, 1980, Hardy conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the property to Respondents J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife. (Testimony of J. Odom, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6, Respondents' Exhibit 1) Rowell Canal is a man-made canal which is designated as Class III waters of the State, and connects lakes Rowell and Sampson, also Class III waters of the State. Lakes Sampson and Rowell are natural lakes that are owned by more than one person. Each lake is larger than ten acres with an average depth of more than two feet existing throughout the year, and neither becomes dry each year. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondents' property lies immediately west of a railroad right-of-way, and a railroad ditch lies parallel to the property next to a railroad trestle. The ditch was approximately 45 feet wide at Rowell Canal and some 215 feet long at the time Respondents acquired the property. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer) At some undisclosed date in 1981, Respondent J. Odom widened and deepened the west side of the ditch with a backhoe in order to create a canal which would enable him to launch boats at the Rowell Canal. The dirt removed from the ditch was piled along the side of the newly created canal. When finished, the canal was some 213 feet long, 20 to 30 feet wide, with depths ranging from 2 to 7 feet. At the present time, a natural earthen plug remains between the excavated canal and the Rowell Canal. During the rainy season, water overflows the plug and any waters from the Odom Canal would interchange to some degree with those of Rowell Canal. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Barber, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondents' Composite Exhibit 2) Respondent Odom did not apply for a permit to conduct the dredging and filling activities on his property. After Petitioner became aware of the situation in September, 1981, two members of the enforcement section of Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict visited the site and determined that the Department had enforcement jurisdiction due to the fact that the dominant vegetation for approximately the first hundred feet of Respondents' canal from Rowell Canal to the north was a band of cypress trees (Taxodium Sp.). Such a wetland species serves as a guide to determining the landward extent of waters of the State, pursuant to Rules 17-4.02(17) and 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. There is also a large number of pine trees on the property. Thereafter, by letter of November 30, 1981, Petitioner's St. Johns River Subdistrict Manager sent a letter to Respondent Hardy placing him on notice concerning unauthorized dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, Respondents' Exhibit 2) By warranty deed, dated July 26, 1982, Respondent Hardy conveyed his interest in the property to J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On August 10, 1982, DER personnel took dissolved oxygen readings of the dredged canal. Analysis of the water samples reflected depressed dissolved oxygen levels throughout the canal in violation of water quality standards for Class III waters. (Testimony of Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) A dead-end canal reasonably can be expected to cause pollution due to the fact that organic matter decays on the bottom and becomes a nutrient trap, thus depressing the dissolved oxygen in the water. During the inspection by DER personnel, gas bubbles were observed in the canal, thus indicating the presence of hydrogen sulphate, which is indicative of anaerobic conditions. The presence of fish in the canal at the present time indicates there is enough dissolved oxygen to sustain life, however. (Testimony of Scott, Farmer, Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Until a few years ago, Sampson Lake had not been developed. However, at the present time many canals have been built and Petitioner has issued twelve notices of violations in the area. Canals such as that of Respondents' can be expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the waters of Rowell Canal and Sampson Lake due to the entry of water containing excessive nutrients. (Testimony of Barber) Respondent Odom Intended to remove the earthen plug at the end of his canal in order to gain access to Rowell Canal from his proposed cement boat ramp to provide access to Sampson Lake. About twelve to fifteen years ago, a dam was built on Sampson Lake to control the water level. Prior to construction of the dam, a road existed around the lake which could be driven upon approximately 50 percent of the time during dry season. At the present time, Respondent can transport a boat through his property to Rowell Canal with difficulty because of the existing trees. Prior to the dredge and fill activity of Respondent, a boat could be moved through the property to Rowell Canal, generally in the area where the present dredged canal is located. (Testimony of Respondent Odom) Petitioner expended $132.34 in costs of investigating Respondents' dredging and filling activities. (Testimony of Barber, Petitioner's Exhibit 10)
Recommendation That Petitioner issue a final order requiring Respondents to take corrective action with regard to their dredge and fill activities as specified in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, and to pay departmental investigative costs, but withhold the effective date thereof to provide Respondents a period of thirty days to make application for an "after- the-fact" permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, F.A.C. If they fail to make such application within the required period, the final order should then become effective. If application is made, the effect of the final order should be staved until conclusion of proceedings on the application. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel and Michael Tammaro, Certified Legal Intern DePartment of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dudley P. Hardy, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1030 Starke, Florida 32091 J. D. Odom, Jr. and Vernie Phillips Odom, his wife Post Office Box 517 Starke, Florida 32091 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-908 DUDLEY P. HARDY, J.D. ODOM, JR., and VERNIE PHILLIPS ODOM, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent William O. Reynolds filed with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation an application to construct a weedgate and fence at the mouth of a dead-end canal in Atlantis Estates Subdivision located on Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Florida. When the Department noticed its intent to issue a dredge and fill permit to Reynolds, Petitioner James A. Abbanat filed his objection. That cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing and was assigned DOAH Case No. 84-1508. On March 8, 1985, a Recommended Order was entered in that cause find in, inter alia, that the proposed project would be constructed in Class III waters of the State (Outstanding Florida Waters), that the weedgate and fence should cause no state water quality violations and should not unreasonably interfere with navigation, that they should actually improve water quality and navigation within the canal and should not significantly decrease water quality outside of the canal, that the project would not be contrary to the public interest, and that the applicant had provided reasonable assurances that the project would not violate Department standards, rules, or applicable statutes. Although the permit application was not certified by a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida, the Recommended Order concluded that that technical deficiency should not form the basis for denying the permit but rather that the permit should be granted with conditions. On April 22, 1985, a Final Order was issued adopting the Recommended Order but denying the permit application solely due to the lack of certification of the permit application by a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. Despite the denial of his application for a permit, Respondent William O. Reynolds caused to be constructed a weedgate and fence. At some undisclosed time Reynolds did, however, submit to the Department of Environmental Regulation a set of drawings for the fence and weedgate. Although the drawing for the weedgate as built was certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, no fence drawing was so certified and the fence as built was located differently than the fence as shown in the drawings. The drawings showed a fence extending from the weedgate through the cove at the entrance to the canal for a distance of 200 feet, while the fence as installed is 100 feet in length and is located within the canal itself. On August 19, 1986, Respondents entered into a consent order acknowledging the prior denial of Reynolds" application due to lack of certification of the permit application, reciting that certification had been obtained, and authorizing the project. Interested persons were not notified of the entry of the consent order. Accordingly, when Petitioner Abbanat learned of its existence and filed his objection to the entry of that consent order, the Department of Environmental Regulation afforded the required point of entry into administrative proceedings and referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal hearing. That objection initiated this cause. The weedgate as built is in substantial accord with the plans submitted to the Department by Reynolds and certified by Joel Rosenblatt, a professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. The design, location, and size of the weedgate as built is substantially similar to that proposed in DOAH Case No. 84-1508. The weedgate as built has the same system of cables and weights and is supported by support posts on each side. As built, the weedgate opens in the middle to permit unimpeded ingress and egress of boats. The weedgate causes neither interruption of water flow nor erosion. The effect of the weedgate as built on state water quality standards is the same as the effect determined in DOAH Case No. 84-1508, i.e., the presence of the weedgate causes no water quality violation either in the canal or in the water just outside the gate and fence. The presence of windblown wrack in the canal was the major cause of state water quality violations. The sole purpose of the gate and fence is to prevent wrack from entering the canal and decaying there causing lowered dissolved oxygen levels and anoxic and/or anaerobic conditions. There has been little or no wrack in the canal since the weedgate and fence were installed, and the weedgate and fence are beneficial to and appear to have improved the water quality in the canal. The 200-foot fence across the cove at the mouth at the canal shown in the drawings submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation does not exist since it has been prohibited by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, Reynolds constructed a 100-foot fence perpendicular to the north side of the weedgate and joined to the rip-rap on the north side of the canal which forms the south edge of the cove. The fence as built prevents wrack from being blown around the gate into the canal, does not affect the water quality in the canal or in the cove, and does not interfere with navigation. The cove itself collects wrack to some degree under natural conditions and without the fence to the south of it because all discontinuities on the Florida Keys eastern coastline tend to trap windblown wrack until it is moved elsewhere by wind or current. The cove does collect more wrack since the fence was installed than it did before the fence was installed; however, estimating the amount would be speculative. Although Petitioner's lot adjoins the canal, it does not adjoin the cove. The owner of the property which does adjoin the cove favors the existing weedgate and fence. The placement of the weedgate and fence does not interfere with navigation in or out of the canal. It is a policy of the Department of Environmental Regulation to issue a consent order for a project if the project has already been built and is of such design and quality that the Department would be able to issue a permit for it had a proper permit application been filed. The weedgate and the fence are of such design and quality that the Department would be able to issue a permit had Reynolds resubmitted his application showing the revised location of the fence and if the drawings were certified by a professional engineer. It was determined in DOAH Case No. 84-1508 that the project was not contrary to the public interest. Since that time the standard has changed from "not contrary to the public interest" to "in the public interest." Although the Department presented only conclusory evidence that it had received reasonable assurances that the public interest standard is met by the project as built, Petitioner allowed that evidence to stand uncontroverted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the consent order signed by the Department of Environmental Regulation and William O. Reynolds on August 19, 1985, and ratifying the conditions contained therein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 21st day of January 1987. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 86-1091 The Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, the first two sentences of 2, 3-5, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: the third sentence of 2 as not being a finding of fact; the first two sentences of 9 as being unnecessary; the last two sentences of 9 as not being supported by the record; and 13 and 15 as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondent Reynolds' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, and 6 have been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance. The remainder of Reynolds' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 2-4 and 5 as being unnecessary for determination herein, and 7 as being not supported by the record in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 and the first sentence of number 4 have been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance. The remainder of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 1 and 2 as being unnecessary; 3 and 6 as not being supported by the record in this cause; 5 and 10 as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; and 7 and the second and third sentences of 4 as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James A. Abbanat 5561 S.W. 3rd Court Plantation, Florida 33317 William O. Reynolds Route 1, Box 661-E Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1982, Petitioner filed with Respondent a dredge and fill permit application to remove gates and wing-walls from a double-lock canal system presently installed at the Palmetto Point Subdivision in Lee County, Florida, adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. On January 6, 1983, Respondent sent a "completeness summary" to Petitioner, along with a letter advising Petitioner that its permit application was incomplete, and requesting additional information. Petitioner responded to the January 6, 1983, completeness summary by submitting additional information to Respondent on or about February 23, 1983. On March 21, 1983, Respondent sent a second completeness summary requesting further additional information from Petitioner. By letter dated May 18, 1983, Petitioner's attorney advised Respondent that submission of additional requested hydrographic information and water quality data was not justified. The letter further advised that Petitioner intended to rely on the information already submitted, and requested, pursuant to Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes, that Respondent begin processing the permit application. The letter further indicated that petitioner was submitting under separate cover a request that Respondent apply the "moderating provisions" of Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, to the application. The aforementioned rule is entitled "Mixing Zones: Surface Waters." Also on May 18, 1983, Petitioner's counsel sent another letter to Respondent requesting the aforementioned "Mixing Zone." The letter requested the "maximum mixing zone" allowed under the applicable Provisions of Rule 17- 4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had not requested a mixing zone be applied to the permit application prior to the request contained in its May 18, 1983, letter. By letter dated June 17, 1983 Respondent, in response to Petitioner's May 18, 1983, letters, advised that: The additional information [which] was received on May 19, 1983, was reviewed; however, the items listed on the attached sheet remain incomplete. Evaluation of your proposed project will continue to be delayed until we receive all requested information. Respondent's June 17, 1983, letter included a completeness summary, which asked for additional information, including the following requests concerning mixing zones: Your request for a mixing zone is applicable pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-4.244(6). Please provide a map indicating the outermost radius of the mixing zone (no more than 150 meters) and the period of time required. The completeness summary acknowledged Petitioner's refusal to supply additional information concerning hydrographic data and water quality information, and indicated that Respondent would evaluate the project accordingly. By letter dated August 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had been 73 days since notification of the incompleteness of the permit application with regard to the mixing zone request. This letter requested Petitioner to advise Respondent if it wished to withdraw the application, request additional time, or discuss questions regarding the application. The Petitioner did not respond to this communication. On September 9, 1983, Petitioner's attorney forwarded a letter to Respondent requesting a default permit pursuant to Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes. Until this letter, other than a prior oral communication on September 2, 1983, notifying Respondent that the default request was forthcoming, Petitioner had not contacted Respondent concerning the permit application since its May 18, 1983, letters. On October 13, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that the mixing zone request constituted a revision of the application and that the information received to evaluate the mixing zone request was incomplete. Petitioner was also advised that since the additional information requested had not been received, the application remained incomplete and Petitioner was not entitled to a default permit. Whether or not a mixing zone is applied to a permit application is significant because it determines where state water quality standards must be met, either adjacent to the proposed project, or up to 150 meters away from the project location. Under Rule 17-4.244(6), Florida Administrative Code, the 150 meter radius is measured from the point of generation of turbidity or pollution. Since the two locks to be removed were 80 feet apart, it was unclear whether Petitioner intended the point of generation for measuring the radius of the mixing zone to be the northern lock, the southern lock, or some other point. It is equally unclear whether Petitioner intended the mixing zone to extend south into the canal as well as north into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioner never contacted Respondent to clarify the dimensions of the mixing zone being sought, even after Respondent requested a map indicating the outermost limits of the mixing zone in the June 17, 1983, completeness summary.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of Tarpon Springs (“City”) is entitled to a industrial wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations. Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that would establish Ross's standing. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in Pinellas County and the applicant for the industrial wastewater permit that is challenged by Ross. The Department is the agency charged by law with the duty, and granted the power, to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The Proposed Permit - General Due to the cost of obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the City’s Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. It determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented the best option for the City. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to convert it to potable water. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet-constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the Town is entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd") of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however, is expected to discharge 1.05 mgd. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County. The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate compliance with its own permitting requirements, so as not to interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate compliance. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on foot from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the mouth of the Anclote River. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater, the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small, pilot-scale RO unit to generate an RO concentrate that is representative of the proposed RO discharge. It was determined that eight constituents of the wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum, copper, iron, gross alpha (a radioactivity measurement), total radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc. The Mixing Zones The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.244. Within the mixing zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. At the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater, receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with Department staff, a separate mixing zone was established for each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet water quality standards at the outfall. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square meters. The mixing zones are conservatively large to assure sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is expected to occur in a smaller area. Toxicity Analysis Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that are acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.500(1)(a). A wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die within a specified time period. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organisms in the receiving waters. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO concentrate indicated zero toxicity. The Department requested that the City also analyze the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A wastewater discharge shows chronic toxicity if exposure to the discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test organisms. The tests performed on the representative discharge showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not create chronic toxicity in the mixing zones. Petitioner’s expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed a general concern about a salty discharge that could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur. The proposed permit requires the City to conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the City to periodically test the water and sediments for any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge. Evaluation of Disposal Options Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.625(6) requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated blending the discharge concentrate with the City's re-use water irrigation program or with the City’s domestic wastewater discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of domestic wastewater available throughout the year. In addition, the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and, therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(2). The City also looked at underground injection but that was economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf. Anti-degradation Analysis For a proposed new discharge, a permit applicant must demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of water quality is not economically and technologically reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(d). As discussed above, the City investigated other disposal options, but they were not economically or technologically reasonable. An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17). In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the Department is required by Rule 62-4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and, if applicable, Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. The proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. The Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as expressed in Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010): The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to conserve and protect water resources, provide adequate supplies and provide for natural systems, and promote brackish water demineralization as an alternative to withdrawals of freshwater groundwater and surface water by removing institutional barriers to demineralization and, through research, including demonstration projects, to advance water and water by-product treatment technology, sound waste by-product disposal methods, and regional solutions to water resources issues. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife. Because the discharge is not toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. The only identified threatened or endangered species that frequents the canal waters is the endangered Florida Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink fresh water. There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the proposed permit. Manatees and many other aquatic species use seagrasses as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge would have no effect on the seagrasses in the area. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Because the proposed discharge is non-toxic and would meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would reduce marine productivity. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However, the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge would probably be undetectable at that distance. It would have no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve. With regard to the requirement that the proposed discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for the area, there is no such plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and approving the issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Henry Ross 1020 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
