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 ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue 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 On April 2, 1981, Lee County applied to DER for a permit to construct an extension of Colonial Boulevard east to State Road 82B by dredging 4,600 cubic yards of material landward of the ordinary high water mark, and by depositing 83,000 cubic yards of fill landward of the ordinary high water mark in an area of Lee County known as the Six Mile Cypress Strand or Six Mile Cypress Slough. The permit application was made by Lee County on standard DER forms which would have been appropriate for an application under either or both Chapters 253 or 403, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Lee County tendered a permit application fee to DER sufficient to cover the cost of an application under both statutes. After review of the application, DER determined that it had no jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and refunded to Lee County that portion of the permit application fee required for a Chapter 253 permit. As indicated above, Lee County's application, on its face, reflected that no fill material or dredging was proposed waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The Six Mile Cypress Strand is a meandering swamp, approximately 44,000 acres in size, dominated by cypress trees. At periods of high water the waters of the swamp empty into Ten Mile Canal, an artificial water body which connects to Estero Bay by way of Mullock Creek, a natural stream. All water bodies involved in this proceeding are classified as Class III waters. Six Mile Cypress Strand functions as a major aquifer recharge area for the eastern central portion of Lee County. The area drained by the Strand receives approximately 54 inches of rainfall annually. The wetland vegetation and uneven contours of the Strand allow the assimilation of nutrients and reduction in turbidity and erosion which could otherwise adversely affect downstream waters. The drainage area north of the proposed project consists of approximately 5,000 acres, or 11 percent of the total drainage basin served by the Strand. The proposed roadway would cross the Strand through a corridor which contains three cypress heads, or flag ponds. These ponds generally retain water during dry periods and support a more diverse community of aquatic life than those portions of the Strand which become completely dry. At the time of final hearing in this cause, these ponds exhibited dry season characteristics and contained less than one foot of water in their deepest portions. During low water periods the Strand itself may be virtually dry except for standing water in the vicinity of cypress heads and flag ponds. Only during the rainy season, which occurs during approximately four months of the year, does the Strand contain standing water. During high water periods, however, water may flow continuously throughout the length of the Strand. During these latter periods, canoes and other such small water craft may be able to negotiate portions of the Strand. No evidence was presented, however, which would indicate that the Strand is now or has ever been utilized, or is susceptible to utilization, for commercial boat traffic. The lands in the Strand over which Lee County proposes to build the roadway were conveyed by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to private ownership after having been acquired from the federal government under the Swamp and Overflow Grant Act of 1850. The Strand was not meandered in the original government survey of the area, and, in fact, the surveyor's field notes reflect that the area of the Strand was densely vegetated and crossed by several roads, including one crossing the section line in the same vicinity proposed for the Colonial Boulevard extension. The existence of this last referenced road is corroborated by biological evidence presently existing on the site, and from examinations of full infrared aerial photography of the area. It is approximately nine miles from the Strand to the nearest meander line contained in the original government survey. Further, evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that water craft may not presently be navigated from Estero Bay into the Strand because of man-made barriers, and no record evidence establishes that such navigation would have been possible at the time of Florida's admission to statehood in 1845 when the stream presumably was in its natural condition. The Department of Natural Resources was notified in accordance with DER policy, of the pendency of Lee County's application, and asserted no claim of ownership over sovereignty lands in the area of the proposed project. The design for the proposed roadway includes a system of collector and spreader swales on the upstream and downstream sides of the Strand, respectively, connected by large culverts to be located beneath the roadway. The swales and culverts are intended to minimize interruption of the Strand's hydroperiod, the natural fluctuation and flow of waters within the affected portion of the Strand. A vegetated swale system paralleling the roadway is also included in the proposed roadway design to provide treatment and nutrient uptake from storm water runoff generated from the surface of the roadway. In addition, the toe of the slope of the roadway will be replanted with native vegetation, and the edge of the fill area will be meandered to save some existing vegetation. It is anticipated that the roadway could result in runoff containing from .17 to .18 pounds per day of nitrogen, and from .01 to .07 pounds per day of phosphate. The grassy swales proposed for inclusion in the project design have the capability of assimilating from 1.8 to 3.6 pounds of these nutrients per day, thereby ensuring a significant safety factor. It can also reasonably be anticipated that the swale areas are capable of absorbing any BOD loading from the roadway surface. As a result, it can reasonably be anticipated that the construction of the project will not result in the discharge of nutrients into the Strand, and that any heavy metals will be bound in organic sediments and not result in degradation of existing water quality. Ambient water conditions in the Strand show low dissolved oxygen content together with high biochemical oxygen demand, neither of which should be exacerbated by construction of the project. No violation of water quality criteria relating to herbicides is anticipated in view of Lee County's commitment at final hearing in this cause to control vegetation by way of mowing instead of by the use of herbicides. The proposed construction will, of course, destroy aquatic vegetation in the area lying in the path or "footprint" of the roadway itself, consisting of approximately seven and one-half acres, three acres of which are predominantly cypress. However, because of the design features of the proposed roadway, including grass, collector and spreader swales and the culvert system, the anticipated impact on the hydroperiod upstream and downstream of the project, and thereby the effect on aquatic vegetation and water quality will not be significant. Construction fabric will be used to allow the road surface to be supported without demucking, thus minimizing turbidity during construction periods, although it is intended that construction be conducted during the dry season, thereby further reducing the potential for turbidity violations. Further, the detention swales which are to be equipped with French drains are designed to retain the first inch of rainfall. Culverts to be constructed on the roadway are designed to accommodate a 50-year, 24-hour storm event. The Secretary of DER issued the subject permit on August 18, 1981, without any prior notice of intent. ASSWF received notice of DER's action in the form of a complete copy of the permit on August 27, 1981. On September 2, 1981, ASSWF filed its petition requesting a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. This petition was received by DER on September 8, 1981. ASSWF and Audubon, and the members of these organizations, use the Six Mile Cypress Strand in the vicinity of the proposed project for field trips and environmental education activities which will be impacted should the project be approved. In addition, Audubon owns property within the Strand which may also be affected by the proposed project if permitted. Intervenors, Community Council and Lehigh Acres of Florida, Inc., Ralph Marciano, Claudia Tipton and H. Mark Strong requested to be granted party status in this proceeding in support of the application. Ralph Marciano owns a business allegedly limited because of the present poor highway access to the business center of the city. Claudia Tipton owns an electrical construction business alleged to be seriously hampered because of extended transportation time in emergency trips. H. Mark Strong is a retired fire marshal and contends that paramedics are seriously hampered in transporting emergency patients to the community hospital located in Fort Myers. The Community Council of Lehigh Acres was formed to serve as a council representing the entire community of Lehigh Acres on problems and projects affecting the health, welfare, growth and prosperity of Lehigh Acres. Essentially, these intervenors assert that the general public welfare and, in some cases, their own personal business interests, will be enhanced by building the proposed roadway, thereby enhancing vehicular access to various portions of the community.
Findings Of Fact The applicant currently operates a 58 slip marina Village at the proposed site, which was constructed under a modified permit from the Department in 1980 by Sunset Realty. Subsequent to that construction, the Petitioner commenced its Marina Village project on uplands adjacent to the existing dock facility and entered into a lease with Sunset Realty to operate the present marina as part of its "Boca Grande Club." The operative portion of the existing marina, that is, where boats are moored and operate, is in water eight feet or greater in depth. The marina provides fuel service at a separate fuel dock as well as electric and telephone service at the individual slips, thus permitting boats using the slips to hook up to on- shore electrical and telephone service. Sewage pump-out equipment is available at the fuel dock and a portable sewage pumping facility is available to be moved to each slip as necessary. Boca Grande Club employs a full time dock master who lives aboard a boat at the existing facility. The facility presently generally serves larger craft, that is, boats generally larger than 25 feet in length and serves some vessels in excess of 60 feet in length. The marina village portion of Boca Grande Club is a condominium, residential development, which is nearly completed and will consist of 48 residential units. A second portion of the Boca Grande Club is located on the Gulf of Mexico some 2,000 feet away from the marina village. The entire project employs slightly more than 100 people. The Petitioner contends that the existing marina of 58 slips is not sufficient to provide adequate dock space for the residents of the development, as well as members of Boca Grande Club. It also contends that the existing dock elevations are such as to make access from small boats to the dock difficult. The number of residents or club members requiring boat slips was not established, nor was it shown that efforts to modify existing dock elevations have been attempted unsuccessfully. In any event, the Petitioner applied to the Department on February 15, 1985, to construct the approximate 3450 square feet of additional dock facility. This would include a "T" shaped structure with an access ramp or walkway extending approximately 189 feet toward the existing channel from the shore. The waterward "T" portion will be 237 feet ~n length. Additionally,. an "L" shaped structure with two sections, each approximately 75 feet in length, would be constructed which would accommodate six boat slips. The "T" shaped dock will accommodate 19 boat slips at its waterward end. The docks proposed will contain ten 3' X 15' finger piers with regard to the "T" shaped dock and two 3' X 15' finger piers attached to the "L" shaped dock. The applicant would install 42 mooring pilings in the bottom of Gasparilla Sound for the mooring of boats using the docks. Thus, the applicant proposes the addition of approximately 25 boat slips with the proposed docks, all of which will be located within Gasparilla Sound, in the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This is a Class II water body pursuant to Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and has also been designated an outstanding Florida water, pursuant to Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The docking facility will be located in an area vegetated by sea grass, including turtle grass and associated algae. The access ramp for the "T" dock would be through a mangrove fringe including red, white and black mangroves. The Department's appraisal recommended denial of the application unless certain modifications to the "T" shaped dock are accomplished, including omitting the "T" shaped docking structure or relocating it to an area without grass beds; that the pilings should be driven into place rather than placed in augured holes; that turbidity screens should be installed and staked around the proposed piling site and that no boats over 25 feet in length or equipped with heads or toilets should be allowed to moor at the docking facility, nor should boats be permitted with people living aboard them. On September 5, 1985, the Respondent issued its Intent to Deny indicating that the project was expected to violate water quality standards and that the construction of the dock and the presence of the moored boats attendant to use of the dock would lower existing water quality in terms of turbidity, biological integrity, bacteriological quality, especially as to fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria and based upon the DER's position that the "T" shaped dock would not clearly be in the public interest in several respects. The Department has no objection and proposes to issue a permit for construction of the smaller, "L" shaped dock. In response to the Intent to Deny, the Petitioner resurveyed the seagrasses in the area and located a site where the water depths sloped to deeper water and seagrasses were sparser. It modified its application, moving the waterward extension of the dock over the deeper water in the less dense seagrasses, but could not move the dock to a location to avoid seagrass since to do so would not allow maneuvering room for larger boats utilizing the existing dock. The applicant agreed to the other suggestions of modification by the Respondent. Thus, the applicant subsequently modified the application to include "bow-in" mooring of boats so as to place boat propellors over the deepest possible waters at the mooring site, as well as raising the central portion of the access ramp leading waterward from the shore, to provide for greater light penetration and less shading of seagrasses, as well as narrowing the dock to five feet in width where it passes through the mangrove fringe, so as to limit alteration of the mangroves at the site to only three trees. The Department continues to take the position that the permit should be denied, however, on the basis that the construction of the dock and the presence of the boats attendant to the dock will lower existing water quality in terms of the above particulars and based upon the DER's evaluation that the "T" shaped dock will not clearly be in the public interest. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY The Petitioner tendered C. W. Sheffield, professional engineer, and Dr. Martin Roessler as experts in the field of water quality and they were accepted without objection. The respondent tendered the expert testimony of Mr. Doug Frye and William Porter, respectively a dredge and fill specialist and supervisor and an environmental specialist with the Shellfish Monitoring Program for the Department of Natural Resources, who were accepted as expert witnesses in the areas of water quality and, with regard to Mr. Porter, the impacts of water quality on shellfish. It was thus established that the ambient water quality in the cove which contains the present marina and where the proposed docking facilities would be is generally good. The water meets all relevant State regulatory standards with the exception of fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters. In that regard, repetitive samples have shown violations of the fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters on a number of occasions. The data relied upon concerning fecal coliform organism levels at the project site was collected and analyzed over approximately a one year period during which time the samples were shown to contain fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria in violative concentrations a number of times. Marinas are known discharge sources for fecal coliform organisms. This is especially true of moored boats in marinas which often have toilets or heads which are illegally flushed into the State waters within the marina. The presence of moored boats with heads are known discharge sources of fecal coliform organisms and the boats utilizing the present marina and the proposed project do, and likely will, have toilets on board, which can be improperly discharged into the waters of the marina. This marina has been established to be a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms in violation of the relevant standard for Class II waters of the State. There presently exists relatively high levels of fecal coliform organisms ranging up to 50 organisms per 100 milliliters of water in the area of the existing marina. This level of concentration exceeds the regulatory standard for fecal coliform bacteria in the Class II water quality rules. Although Mr. Porter discussed the possibility that high levels of coliform bacteria could be caused by birds or animals depositing fecal material in the water, he established that the likely source of elevated levels of this bacteria was improper operation of heads aboard boats, as pointed out by the fact that samples taken in other areas of the Gasparilla Sound away from marina sites do not exhibit the high coliform levels found on repeated occasions at the subject site. Thus, it has been established that the ambient water quality is within State standards for all parameters with the exception of fecal and total coliform bacteria for Class II waters. The Petitioner contends that Class III water standards are appropriately applied herein inasmuch as the Department placed the Class III standards rather than the Class II standards at issue in its Intent to Deny, albeit mistakenly. There is no question, however, that there are Class II waters of the State involved at this site and the subject area is within the aquatic preserve and outstanding Florida waters. The Petitioner is charged with knowledge of this inasmuch as the aquatic preserve boundaries are delimited in the Department's above-cited, published rule. In preparing and processing its application and electing to proceed with this project, the Petitioner is charged with knowledge that these are Class II waters and that the water quality criteria and considerations applicable to Class II outstanding Florida waters are the appropriate parameters with which it must comply. In any event, this is a de novo proceeding and the Department's initial position with regard to this application is not binding in favor of or to the prejudice of any party to the Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes proceeding. IMPACT ON BENTHIC COMMUNITY ·9. There is a moderate stand of seagrass at the proposed site of the "T" portion of the dock or waterward end of the dock, with dense seagrass beds existing toward the shore, over which the narrower walkway portion of the dock will traverse. Seagrass beds are an especially productive marine community which contribute greatly to the biological diversity in surrounding waters because of their important function in the marine food chain. That function is involved with the seagrasses production of detrital matter consisting of seeds and vegetative material which marine organisms feed upon and upon which organisms larger fish, including commercial and sport fish species, feed upon. Potential adverse impacts caused by a project of this type on the Benthic Community at the project site and especially the seagrass beds involve the potential shading of seagrasses caused by the location of the dock over them, as well as the mooring of boats over them which shading retards or eliminates photosynthesis, which ultimately can kill the seagrass and thus reduce marine productivity in the area. The concentration of boats at such a mooring site as the end of this "T" dock will concentrate the effects of prop scouring, washing and prop dredging, which will have a destructive effect on seagrasses as well as the settling out of sediment from propellor wash or disturbance of the bottom on the seagrasses which can ultimately smother them as well as other marine life forms. In discussing these considerations, it should be pointed out that the "T" portion of the dock would be oriented in a general north-south direction which causes the shadow of the dock to move rapidly as the sun passes overhead in a general east to west direction. This would tend to minimize the effect of shading on the seagrass of the dock itself, particularly with regard to the approach ramp portion of the dock which is relatively narrow. That portion of the dock extending toward the shore runs in an east to west direction and would not exhibit the same rapidly moving shadow, but the central portion of the approach walkway has been elevated to such an extent that light reaching under the dock from both sides will be sufficient to allow photosynthesis of the seagrasses under the dock, although not for as long a period of the day nor at the same rate as would be the case if the dock were not present. The Petitioner asserts that its voluntary relocation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock from an area of dense sea grass to a moderately populated sea grass bed plus the proposed bow-in mooring of boats so as to alleviate propellor damage to the seagrass, together with its view concerning the prevailing water depth at the end of the dock, will serve to prevent damage to the seagrass at the end of the "T" dock where the boats will be moored. It has been shown, however, that the mooring of boats whether bow-in or otherwise will still create a significant amount of shading of the bottom which, together with the shading caused by the "T" dock as well as the associated finger piers will retard or prevent photosynthesis to some extent, especially where boats are moored for days at a time without moving. This will significantly reduce the marine productivity attributable to the seagrass by retarding its natural function or, in some cases, killing it with the resultant loss of the detrital production as well as carbon production, the former being crucial to the proper functioning of the marine food chain in the area. If the seagrass is damaged or extinguished by the shading effect, prop scouring and washing, and/or settlement of turbidity on the seagrass, or a combination of these factors, not only will its productivity be lost, but the biological diversity of marine life in the area will be reduced as it relates to those vertebrate and invertebrate marine animals which depend on seagrass as a food source either directly or indirectly. Dr. Roessler, for the Petitioner, opined that the attached biological communities or "fouling" organisms such as barnacles which would form on the dock pilings, if they were installed, would provide habitat for marine life and invertebrates and thus enhance the biological diversity of the area. These fouling organisms which attach to pilings, however, represent a very narrow portion of the potential marine biological diversity of life forms in an area such as this. Their advent on the pilings, should the pilings be installed, would not mitigate for the loss of important marine habitat and resultant species diversity that elimination of this portion of the seagrass beds would pose. Thus, reasonable assurances have not been established that significant adverse impact to the Benthic Community in the form of damage or elimination of the seagrass beds and their dependent biota will not occur due to shading and propellor scouring, dredging and washing occasioned by the installation of the docking facility. Respondent's expert witnesses Sheftal, Barth, and Dentzau uniformly expressed a concern for propellor scarring, dredging and prop washing of the seagrass beds caused by an improper operation of boats in the project area where water is too shallow over the grass beds to protect them from the resultant propellor damage. In this regard, the Petitioner's own experiments with actual boats indicated that approximately one to 1 1/2 feet of water will remain between the bottom of the sound and the boat propellors at the end of the "T" dock for the general type and size of boats which will use the dock, even assuming that the boats are moored bow inward, thus taking maximum advantage of the deepest water possible under the propellors when a boat engine is started. Respondent's witness Dentzau performed a test with a 21 foot boat with an approximately 100 horsepower outboard engine running it in both forward and reverse at the "T" end of the dock. He was able to readily generate a "plume" of turbidity consisting of sand and other bottom material suspended in the water by the scouring action of the propellor. Although it was demonstrated for water quality parameter considerations that this turbidity plume did not violate the water quality standards for turbidity, it obviously shows that over time the turbidity suspended by boat propellors will settle on the seagrasses and other bottom dwelling biota to their detriment and, more immediately important, demonstrates that prop washing and scouring will occur by boats even if moored bow-in at the presently proposed site of the "T" shaped portion of the dock. The Petitioner proposes by the configuration of its "L" shaped dock in conjunction with the IT" shaped dock, as well as with buoy lines, to keep boat traffic away from the dense grass beds surrounding the proposed dock site and over which the walkway will extend. The Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent grass beds. It has not been demonstrated, however, what steps can be taken to effectively prevent boats from approaching the side of the proposed dock around the ends of the buoy lines and over the dense grass beds toward prohibitively shallow water where prop scouring and scarring will occur. Further, although the Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent dense grass beds, the likelihood of propellor damage to the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the "T" dock has been exacerbated by the concentration of boat traffic which will result by installation of that dock, over waters at the mooring site which are of insufficient depth to protect the grass bed at that location from scouring and washing from boat propellors. In view of these reasons, significant adverse impacts to the Benthic Communities and especially to the grass beds themselves will result by installation of the docking facility at the site proposed, primarily because of insufficient water depth for safe operation of boats in relation to the well-being of the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the dock and because of the shading which will result by installation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock in conjunction with the boats to be moored to it and the finger piers between the boat slips attached to it. WATER QUALITY The Respondent, through its water quality expert witness, Doug Frye, expressed the concern that the proposed project would violate Rule 17-3.051, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the State's waters be free from pollutants above a certain level measured by various accepted and codified scientific methods of measurement. In this regard, the primary concern of the Department is bacteriological quality as well as turbidity resulting from boat operation. The turbidity standards contained in the above Rule provides that State waters not exceed 29 nephelometric turbidity units above the natural background level. The Respondent contends that this level will be exceeded as a result of operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock. The Petitioner, however, presented a soils analysis and silt settling study which showed that bottom materials in the area involved consist of sand, with some finely pulverized shell and that this material settles very rapidly after being disturbed with little silt remaining in suspension a significant period of time after the disturbance. This is primarily because the level of organics in the bottom substrate is very low at this site. In this connection, the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Sheffield, anchored a 16 foot boat with a 40 horsepower outboard motor in the docking area of the proposed project. He operated the boat at 1,000 RPM for an extended period of time while measuring the resultant turbidity. The results of his measurements showed turbidity to be in the range of 5-11 NTUs. The Respondent's witnesses, however, operated a larger 21 foot boat at the location of the "T" shaped portion of the dock maneuvering it back and forth with a fairly large outboard motor in the 100 horsepower class, which might be presumed to be typical of the boats which will be using the proposed facility. The maneuvering of the boat with the larger engine in this shallow water created a clearly visible plume of turbidity shown by photographs introduced into evidence by the Respondent. In fact, however, although the turbidity plume was clearly visible, the Respondent's own direct measurement of turbidity taken from within the plume immediately after it was generated was 23.8 NTUs, still below the State standards for violations as to turbidity. The existing marina facility has a fuel dock and has adopted a fuel spill contingency plan. There will be no fueling of boats nor fuel kept at the proposed docks. Nevertheless, marinas were established to be a known source of discharge of oils and greases and the presence of more boats utilizing all the dock facilities, especially during fueling and maintenance procedures, will result in additional oils and greases being deposited in the water. Even if there is no fueling facility planned for the proposed docks, the additional boats represented by the 25 additional slips sought to be approved will have to be fueled and likely at the existing facility. This will heighten the risk of fuel, oil and grease spills. In this regard, it must be remembered that the present marina and the proposed docking facilities are in outstanding Florida waters in which no degradation of ambient water quality is permitted. In this context then, the Petitioner/Applicant has, not provided reasonable assurances that pollution levels for oils and greases will not increase as a result of the potential addition of 25 boats to this marina facility. A substantial issue has been raised in this proceeding concerning water quality as it relates to the bacteriological standard. It has been established that this marina is presently a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms which frequently are present in sufficient concentrations so as to violate the standard for that organism for Class II waters. Fecal coliform bacteria are accumulated in the bodies of shellfish. The shellfish themselves are not harmed, but contaminated shellfish can accumulate concentrations of as much as 100 times the ambient fecal coliform bacterial levels present in the waters they inhabit. Fecal coliform bacteria can cause extreme illness in human beings, sometimes even paralysis and death. Fecal coliform bacteria in State waters results from the deposition therein of human or animal waste. The Petitioner maintains a sewage pumpout station located at its fuel dock with a direct connection to its sanitary upland sewer system, as well as a portable sewage pump that can be moved to each boat slip for pumping out of toilets or "heads" on boats. Upland fish cleaning stations will additionally be provided with the proposed docks so as to prevent refuse from fish cleaning activities being deposited into the waters of the cove. The fact remains, however, that there presently exist high levels of fecal coliform organisms in the waters of the cove at the marina site, in the above noted violative concentrations on repetitive occasions. The presence of boats moored in the marina with "heads" aboard are a known discharge source of fecal coliform organisms. The Petitioner proposes to restrict boats using the facility to those boats without marine heads aboard or requiring those with heads to keep them locked or otherwise not discharge them into the waters of the marina. If boats utilizing the marina have toilets aboard, however, there is a substantial likelihood that at some point those toilets will be discharged into the waters of the cove before any of the Petitioner's monitoring personnel are aware of it. The problem is thus one of enforcement. In this regard, it is established that even with the sewage pumpout station and the portable sewage pumpout device, that there are a number of "live-aboard" boats with marine heads in the marina at the present time and customarily. This has caused the above found violations of fecal coliform, Class II water standards. Although the Petitioner proposes to restrict boats at the proposed docking facility to those less than 25 feet in length and to establish a monitoring program by the marina management personnel to assure that the boats with heads only contain heads approved by Coast Guard regulation, reasonable assurances have still not been established that the enforcement plan proposed can be effective in ensuring that no marine heads or other sources of coliform bacteria will be discharged into the waters of the cove at the project site. The plan proposed by the Petitioner simply did not ensure that boats having marine heads will not use the marina and that those persons using boats so equipped will not, on some occasions, discharge the heads into the waters of the marina at the project site nor that spills will not result in the sewage pumping-out process. The Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Porter, confirmed that most fishing boats of the open "center console" variety of 25 feet length or less do not contain marine heads, nevertheless, he established that in his experience monitoring marinas of this sort, the restrictions against marine heads of the non-approved variety and the attempted restriction against boats discharging the contents of their heads into the waters of the marina cannot be effectively enforced nor was it established that fishing boats without marine heads will be the only type of boat to use the proposed docking facilities. Accordingly, the waters of the cove at the marina site and project site are in frequent violation of the fecal coliform and total coliform parameter for Class II waters and reasonable assurances have not been provided that the fecal coliform bacterial levels will not increase as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed facility with its attendant boats. Because of the likelihood of shellfish contamination by fecal coliform bacterial levels which will likely increase if the proposed project is constructed and operated, together with the loss of marine habitat and productivity posed by the harm likely to result to the seagrass beds in the vicinity of the proposed facility due to attendant boat operation, it has been shown that the water quality parameter for biological integrity in these Outstanding Florida Waters will likely be degraded. The "Diversity Index" of marine microinvertebrates in the area of the affected seagrass beds will likely be reduced below 75 percent of background levels. Therefore, in the context discussed above, the proposed construction and operation of the 25-slip marina facility with the "T" dock will lower ambient water quality in these outstanding Florida waters and will result in violations of State water quality standards for Class II waters in the above particulars. SHELLFISH HARVESTING Mr. William Porter of the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation established that the cove where the project would be located is closed to the taking of shellfish as a result of the contamination or potential for contamination of shellfish by coliform bacteria contained in fecal material. His Department's water quality sampling confirmed the elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the cove on repetitive occasions. This elevated level of coliform organisms was shown to result from improper operation of marine toilets upon vessels using the marina at the present time. Because of the potential for contamination from vessels discharging fecal material, Mr. Porter established that the Department would likely close an area 50 percent larger than the present shellfish harvest closure area as a result of a 50 percent increase in the number of boats capable of using the marina if the proposed project is built. Mr. Porter acknowledges that if it could be assured that boats using the marina did not contain heads, the increased area of closure might be lessened after this project were built. He also established as pointed out above that such restrictions on boats containing heads from using the proposed boat slip is very difficult to enforce. Even with the present central sewage pumpout facilities and portable pumpout equipment at the existing marina, the marina still has failed to comply with fecal and total coliform standards for Class II waters on a repetitive basis. The management of the present marina has allowed live-aboard boats at the marina even though it has posted warning signs against boat owners discharging toilets in the cove waters. Mr. Porter also acknowledged that the Boca Grande North Marina, owned by Gasparilla Pass, Inc., was recently permitted by the DER and constructed and has not yet resulted in the Department's closing an additional area to the taking of shellfish. The area the marina is situated in, however, is only "conditionally approved" for the taking of shellfish, meaning that it is subject to closer monitoring by the DNR with a view toward the possible necessity of closing waters in the area of that marina. It was not established, however, how the fecal coliform or total coliform levels in the waters adjacent to that marina compare to the existing marina or the site of the proposed docking facilities at the existing marina, nor what conditions might prevail which would render that other marina a comparable site to -be used as a relevant demonstration of what conditions might be expected at the present marina if the proposed project were built and operated. Thus it has been shown that even though the Petitioner proposes limiting the size of boats at the proposed facility and closely inspecting and regulating any marine heads on boats using the facility to make sure they comply with Coast Guard regulations, it has not been demonstrated that the additional deposition of fecal coliform bacteria in the waters often the cove will be adequately prevented by the proposed enforcement measures. It is thus reasonably likely that the construction of the proposed project will lead to the closing of an additional area of water which is presently approved for shellfish harvesting. The closure of shellfish harvesting in waters is contrary to the public interest in terms of recreational values, fishing and marine productivity and others of the seven public interest criteria quoted below. Further, the contamination of shellfish, which can cause severe illness or even death in human beings, is clearly contrary to the public interest and there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish contamination is already occurring in the area due to the characteristic of shellfish by which they accumulate or store fecal coliform organisms to reach injurious levels for human consumption even though the shellfish themselves appear to be healthy. The area of the proposed project is extensively used for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting at the present time, outside the immediate closed waters of the marina within the cove. PUBLIC INTEREST Section 403.918(2) (a) (1-7) requires that the Petitioner provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest. The public interest considerations of those seven criteria concern whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or property of others: whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats; whether it will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the project vicinity; whether it will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the effect on the current condition and relative value of functions reformed by areas affected by the project. Although Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, related that the attached fouling communities, such as barnacles, which would form on the proposed docks and pilings would increase the diversity of marine habitat available, that will not offset the loss of marine habitat occasioned by the increasingly detrimental effect imposed by the project and the operation of it on the seagrass beds, in the manner discussed above. The fouling communities expected by Dr. Roessler to occur on the pilings to be installed, will not provide, nor replace the value of, the detritus (seeds and leaves) produced by the seagrass which would be lost, which is an important food source for marine organisms in the upper portion of the food chain in the area, some of which organisms include fish and have a high recreational value and commercial value. The importance of detrital production by the seagrass beds outweigh the value of the addition of the fouling communities on the pilings. In fact, the total diversity of marine species actually might decline even though the fouling organisms would be added with the installation of the pilings, once the harmful effects on the seagrass beds begin to occur after installation and operation of the proposed facility and over the life of the marina. Thus, in this regard, the project is contrary to the public interest and certainly not clearly in the public interest. Additionally, there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish may be contaminated which, in turn, will have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare. The harvesting of shellfish has a substantial recreational and commercial value and is an important aspect of the marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The heightened coliform bacteria production caused by the resultant expansion of the marina will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity and will degrade the current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the marine habitat in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Finally, there is no question that the project will be of a permanent nature. The various detrimental effects on the public interest consideration found herein are rendered more critical by the fact that there is no truly redeeming public purpose or use for this project. This will be essentially a private docking facility designed to serve the residents of the applicant's attendant real estate development. The upland development is a condominium development and the slips will be owned by the condominium owners and not open to the general public, although the Petitioner did make vague reference to an idea that some slips might be rented to members of the public. This was not established to be the case and, in any event, the primary purpose of the boat slips is to enhance the desirability of the upland development. Although the Petitioner emphasizes that the advent of the additional slips might help attract as much as $1,000,000 additional revenue to the Boca Grande area by assisting the applicant in hosting the Annual Tarpon Release Fishing Tournament, it is also true that any development in a coastal area will likely represent some economic benefit to that area, but there is also a substantial economic and recreational benefit to maintaining the outstanding Florida waters involved in an undegraded condition and maintaining the present Class II, approved shellfish harvesting area unimpaired. Thus, although the proposed docks might be used for sponsorship of the subject fishing tournament and it can be said that that would enhance fishing and recreational value to some extent, it was not established that the tournament will not occur and that the extra revenue and enhancement of fishing and recreational value it will generate will not occur in the Boca Grande area anyway. The potential detrimental effects of the proposed project, delineated above, will also decrease fishing and recreational value over many years and for the life of this project in terms of harm to the marine habitat occasioned by the constant deposition of oils, greases and fuel and coliform bacteria in the Class II waters involved, as well as the other detrimental aspects of the project discussed above. It has not been established that the economic benefits of the fishing tournament and the addition of the boat slips will not occur but for the installation of this proposed docking facility. Although it may help relieve a shortage of marina slips in the area, it was not shown that this is the only alternative to relief of that shortage. ALTERATION OF MANGROVES The original site for the access ramp or walkway to the "T" shaped portion of the dock was selected through an on site inspection conducted in part by Respondent's witness, Andrew Barth. The mangrove area is less dense at the site of the walkway's penetration of the mangrove belt than surrounding mangrove areas. Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, has participated in many studies involving mangroves in South Florida. He identified each tree within the proposed dock pathway. Through narrowing of the dock walkway to five feet and the relocation agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Barth, it has been established that only three mangrove trees will be removed by the construction of the dock. Thus, there will be no substantial alteration or degradation of the mangrove fringe area at the project site. DOCK CONSTRUCTION Mr. C. W. Sheffield was accepted as an expert witness in the field of marine engineering. He established that the pilings will be installed using a 6 to 8 inch chisel point driven into the bottom of the sound with an air hammer. There will be no augering or other means of excavation used which would generate a substantial amount of turbidity. The air hammer will result in compaction of sediments by forces radiating out from the piling as it is driven, with the counteracting sheer force caused by the piling installation causing a slight bulging in the bottom around each piling, but nothing more. There will be no significant movement of sediment in the water column. The construction of the dock will take place moving from the land waterward, utilizing equipment mounted on the dock. Thus, construction barges will not be required to come into the shallow grass bed area with the potential for its damage. Small barges would be used in the deeper waterward portions of the project to install the mooring pilings off-shore from the end of the "T" dock. Turbidity curtains will be used during all construction, surrounding all phases of the construction work. In Mr. Sheffield's experience, such measures have resulted in no violation of the State turbidity standards at other similar projects, and are not likely to with this one. CUMULATIVE IMPACT A number of permits have been issued by the Department for docking facilities to the north of this proposal and other facilities are already in existence. Dr. Roessler opined that the geographic location of these, as well as that of this project, in light of the numerous inlets and high degree of tidal flushing and exchange through the inlets, will not result in any adverse cumulative impact occasioned by the addition of the proposed dock with 25 slips to those already existing in the Sound. It is noteworthy that, with regard to the potential this project poses for damage to the seagrass beds and for heightened production of fecal coliform bacteria, with the environmental damage attendant thereto, no proof was offered by either party concerning those considerations or effects to the extent that they might or might not exist at other marinas or docking facilities in the Gasparilla Sound area. There has been no proof to establish any cumulative impact.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject permit application, except for that portion seeking authorization for the "L" shaped dock and six boat slips attendant thereto, which should be granted with the agreed-upon conditions and restrictions contained in the above Findings of Fact. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are numbered below in the order in which they were presented (unnumbered) by the Petitioner. 1-6. Accepted Accepted, excepted for the last two sentences which are immaterial Accepted. Accepted, except as to the proffered material import of the last sentence. Accepted, except the first sentence which is not in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, except as to the last three sentences which are not supported by preponderant evidence 12-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as not being in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not as dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, except as to the last sentence which is rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except as to the third and last sentences which are rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except for the third and last two sentences which are rejected as to their purported import in the resolution of the material issues presented and as being not in accordance with the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not as dispositive of the jurisdictional issue concerning "dredging and filling" for the reasons found in the Recommended Order. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-18. Accepted 19. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented. 20-25. Accepted. Rejected as not being a complete finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted, except as to the issue of water dept which would actually be less at the critical location involved. Accepted. Accepted, but not material. 31-31. Accepted. 35. Accepted, but not truly material in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1386 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Stephen Fox, Director Division of Environmental Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ================================================================ =
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to connect his canal to the Caloosahatchee River be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1976.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project is a six-lane, combination low and high level bridge crossing Mill Cove and the St. John's River in Duval County, Florida. The project entails construction of approximately 6,000 feet of low level trestle-type bridge structure and approach spans beginning on the south side of Mill Cove and extending across the Cove to the northern edge of Quarantine Island, an artificial spoil island; 3,000 feet of high level bridge crossing the main channel of the St. John's River; and northern approach spans touching down on Dame Point on the northern shore of the St. John's River. In order to construct the proposed project, JTA is required to obtain a water quality permit and certification from DER. JTA filed its application with DER, accompanied by supporting data, including several studies performed by professional consultants. After review of the application, DHR filed notice of its intent to issue the requested water quality permit and certification, and Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, to oppose the issuance of the permit and certification. Petitioners are various groups and individuals concerned about water quality in the St. John's River and the Jacksonville area. Petitioners' standing to seek relief in this proceeding was stipulated by all parties. Construction of the project will result in: filling of approximately .07 acres of wetlands to construct the south abutment on the shore of Mill Cove; dredging of approximately 185,000 cubic yards of material from Mill Cove to create a 4,400 foot long, 190 foot wide barge access channel, with a five foot navigation control depth parallel to the low level portion of the project; temporary filling of approximately .3 acres of wetlands above mean high water on the south shore of Quarantine Island to provide construction access to the island, which area is to be restored upon completion of construction; construction of a diked upland spoil containment site approximately 31 acres in size above mean high water on Quarantine Island to retain all dredge spoil associated with the project; construction of a temporary dock at the northern end of Quarantine Island for access and staging purposes, which is to be removed on project completion; and filling of approximately 16,000 cubic feet of material waterward of mean high water for rip-rap protection around main piers in the St. John's River. Dredged materials will be removed by hydraulic dredges. The St. John's River and its tributaries have been designated Class III waters by DER in the project area. The project involves dredging below mean high water and filling above mean high water, and is a dredge-and-fill project for purposes of Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and is regulated by DER. The project is an element in a proposed eastern bypass around the City of Jacksonville. It is expected that, as a result of the project, existing area industry will receive more efficient transportation service, commuter trip miles from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville will be reduced, transportation routes to education facilities will be improved, and tourist traffic will be routed around downtown Jacksonville, reducing miles traveled to nearby beach resorts and thereby relieving downtown congestion. The benefits to costs ratio of the project appears positive and beneficial to Duval County and Jacksonville, in that for every dollar spent to construct the project, $2.80 could be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Testimony clearly established that the state waters in the project area are currently severely degraded and are not likely to meet Class III water quality standards. Violations of Class III standards for dissolved oxygen and some heavy metals, such as mercury, presently exist as background conditions in the St. John's River and Mill Cove. Further, a water quality analysis performed by DER in the project area indicates high background concentrations of heavy metals and PCB's in both the water column and sediments in the project area. When the pro posed project is analyzed within the context of these existing background water quality conditions, it appears highly unlikely that any impact from the project will further degrade existing conditions. The project as currently designed includes plans for total containment of spoil material resulting from dredging activity on the upland portions of Quarantine Island. There will be no direct discharge of dredge $materials from this containment area into the receiving waters of the state. JTA performed a water and sediment analysis of the project area, the purpose of which was to determine the existence and concentrations of specific pollutants that could adversely impact Class III waters if reintroduced into the aquatic system. JTA employed a consultant whose analytical program was designed in consultation with DER and complied with all standard testing procedures required by Rule 17-3.03, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis identified three primary-project activities where control of toxic and deleterious materials was critical: turbidity control; upland spoil containment; and direct discharge of spoil water to state waters. Sediments in the Mill Cove area are extremely fine and may be resuspended in the water column in quantities that could violate state water quality standards if dredging is done improperly. It appears from the evidence that any turbidity problem can be avoided by employing silt curtains and hydraulic dredging during channel excavation. Silt curtains should adequately retain turbidity below levels which would violate state water quality standards, in view of the fact that the JTA study hypothesized a "worst-case" condition for projecting turbidity and pollutant concentration by assuming no upland spoil containment, silt curtains or reasonable mixing zone. Although use of silt curtains and hydraulic dredging cannot absolutely guarantee zero-discharge of suspended sediments from the dredging area, the proposed system of turbidity control is adequate to provide reasonable assurance of non-violation of state water quality standards. Due to the existing toxic background conditions in Mill Cove, DER imposed a permit condition requiring spoil from dredging activities to be completely contained in an upland landfill-type site, with no overflow that could allow effluent to return to waters of the state. The upland dike system proposed in the project application is designed to retain all spoil material and water without direct discharge into state waters. Testimony established that the proposed dike system is designed to hold far more spoil material than the proposed project will generate. Although the dike system is to be constructed from dredged material previously deposited on Quarantine Island, it appears from the testimony that these materials were dredged from the main channel of the St. John's River and are cleaner and sandier in character than sediments in the Mill Cove area. The dike system, in conjunction with natural percolation and evaporation, is adequately designed to retain dredge spoil on the upland portion of Quarantine Island, and can reasonably be expected not to release toxic and deleterious substances into receiving waters of the state. It is also significant that a condition of the requested permit requires project water quality monitoring to afford continuing assurance that the project will not violate standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. These standards and the conditions required to achieve them have been included in DER's letter of intent to issue the permit for this project. It is specifically concluded from the evidence that project dredging will not release toxic and deleterious substances into Class III waters in violation of state water quality standards, and that project dredging in Mill Cove incorporates reasonable safeguards for spoil disposal and turbidity control so as to assure non-violation of state water quality standards. JTA plans to use a direct discharge method to dispose of storm water from the bridge. Storm water will fall through 4-inch screened holes called "scuppers" placed at regular intervals along the bridge surface directly into either Mill Cove or the St. John's River. JTA was required to provide in its application reasonable assurance that storm water runoff from the Project would not exceed applicable state standards for turbidity, BOD, dissolved solids, zinc, polychlorinated biphenols, lead1 iron, oils or grease, mercury, cadmium and coliform. To this end, JTA submitted a study entitled Effect of Rainfall Runoff from Proposed Dame Point Bridge on Water Quality of St. John's River. This study analyzed the chemical composition of storm water runoff from an existing bridge, comparable in both size and design, to the proposed project, which crosses the St. John's River south of the City of Jacksonville. This study adequately established that storm water runoff into the St. John's River across the length of the proposed bridge will not degrade the water quality of the St. John's River below current water quality standards. All but three of the parameters tested in the study were within standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The remaining three pollutants were either not automobile-related, or would not violate applicable water quality standards after a reasonable opportunity" for mixing with receiving waters. One of these pollutants, mercury, is not automobile-related, and the concentration of mercury discovered in bridge runoff test samples was essentially the same as that measured in rainfall samples. The sampling for mercury was performed using the ultrasensitive "atomic absorption" method, which is capable of measuring tenths of a part per billion of mercury. Another method, the "Dithizone" method, is a technique recognized as effective by DER, and would have, if utilized, yielded a result within the "none detectable" standard contained in Rule 17-3.05(2) , Florida Administrative Code. As to the remaining two pollutants, coliform and lead, testimony established that a dilution rate of 400 to 1, after mixing with receiving waters, would not result in violation of applicable Class III water standards. Testimony also clearly established that water circulation in the project area would result in the requisite dilution ratio of approximately 400 to 1. The storm water runoff study was performed on a bridge similar in all important characteristics to the proposed project, and therefore validates the scientific methodology utilized to determine the expected impact of runoff from the proposed project on water quality in the St. John's River. The applicant has provided in its permit application the best practicable treatment available to protect state waters in the design of both the low and high level portions of the proposed bridge. Extensive research and analysis of design alternatives for both the low and high level portions of the bridge were undertaken by JTA and its consultants prior to selecting the proposed design for the bridge. JTA prepared and submitted to DER, as part of the application process, a document entitled Summary of Construction Techniques in Mill Cove, Dame Point Expressway. This document analyzed and summarized the available construction and design alternatives for the low level trestle portions of the project. The analysis included consideration of overhead construction, construction from a temporary wooden structure parallel to the project, and construction from barges using a shallow channel parallel to the project. The design chosen will cost more than one million dollars less than the next alternative, and will cut construction time by two years over the next alternative design. Given the demonstrated need for the proposed project, the already degraded water quality in the project area, the safeguards for water quality contained-in the project design, and the savings to be realized in both cost and time of construction, the design presently contained in the application is the best practicable. Both Petitioners and JTA have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 7 have also been substantially adopted. To the extent that proposed findings of fact submitted by either Petitioners or JTA are not adopted in the Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether certain development orders issued by Monroe County to Homeowners, Ocean Reef Club and Key Largo Foundation (Applicants) for a project that would ultimately result in the construction of a flushing canal in the Ocean Reef Club development on north Key Largo are consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and all rules promulgated thereunder. Section 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statues. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local government within the Florida Keys area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implementation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents, Homeowners, Ocean Reef Club and Key Largo Foundation (Applicants), are the owners of real property in the Ocean Reef and Harbour Course subdivisions, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida; properties that are located within that part of Monroe County designated as an area of Critical State Concern. The Applicants have sought the development orders (permits) at issue in this proceeding incident to their 8-year quest to achieve regulatory approval to initiate a project that would restore the water quality of Dispatch Creek to Class III water standards. Background The site of the proposed project, the present terminus of Dispatch Creek, is located within the Ocean Reef Club development on north Key Largo. That development is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, on the north by Biscayne National Park, and on the west by the Biscayne Bay/Card Sound Aquatic Preserve. Currently, the development at the Ocean Reef Club includes a number of canals and boat basins, an airstrip; three 18-hole golf courses, a 174-slip marina capable of docking vessels in excess of 100 feet, and extensive residential and-commercial uses. In the mid-1970's, Dispatch Creek was a natural, albeit shallow, waterbody that was able to maintain, through natural tidal actions, water quality standards. However, in 1977 Ocean Reef Club, under permits issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in the mid-1970's excavated the creek to new depths to create a navigable channel and extended its length beyond its natural contours. When completed, the creek was converted from a natural waterbody, that could maintain water quality standards through natural tidal action, into a dead-end system, that could not maintain such standards through natural processes along the course of its extended terminus. 1/ Over time, the water quality of Dispatch Creek from its approximate midpoint to its dead-end terminus has steadily declined. The cause of this decline is reasonably attributable to the biochemical oxygen demand placed on the creek by the continuous input of detritus from mangroves, which boarder the creek on the east and to a lesser extent on the west, and the length of the channel, coupled with the dead-end basin surrounding an island, which has assured the continued decline of water quality due to poor water circulation. As a consequence, the creek, as a habitat, has been altered from an oxygen rich system supportive of aerobic life to an oxygen poor system supportive of anaerobic life. This has evidenced itself through algae blooms, the intermittent emission of hydrogen sulfide gas, and a change in water clarity to that of a "coffee au lait" color. Currently, a significant portion of Dispatch Creek is devoid of aerobic life, and unless its condition is reversed it could not support aerobic marine organisms in the future. /2 Today, conditions in portions of Dispatch Creek fail to meet DER standards. DER regulations establish the dissolved oxygen (DO) standard to be not less than five milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period, and never less that four milligrams per liter. The DO Standard is currently violated in Dispatch Creek beginning at the mid point of the creek to its terminus. At its terminus, DO levels are chronically below one milligram per liter. Additionally, DER nutrient standards prohibit the alteration of nutrient concentrations of a body of water so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Here, the high nutrient levels of Dispatch Creek resulting from the mangrove detritus and lack of circulation has, as heretofore noted, caused the natural aquatic flora and fauna to be replaced by anaerobic life. As a consequence of the changes in water quality that had occurred in Dispatch Creeks the Applicants have, over the course of the past eight years, sought approval from various regulatory authorities, including DER and Monroe County, of a plan to improve the water quality in Dispatch Creek. Such approval has been garnered from DER, and Monroe County's approval is at issue in this proceeding. The DER permit On February 7, 1986, the Applicants received approval from DER for a permit to construct a flushing canal from the terminus of Dispatch Creek to the Atlantic Ocean. That permit authorized the Applicants: To construct a "flushing canal" between the dead end of Dispatch Creek Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean by: excavating approximately 13,000 cubic yards to create a canal approximately 3000 ft. long by 20 ft. wide with a bottom elevation of 6 ft. Mean Low Water; placing three 6 ft. by 6 ft. by 380 ft. box culverts in the canal alignment at the basin end; placing tidal actuated flap gates on the basin end of the culverts in a manner which will allow the basin to intake water from the flushing canal on incoming tides while preventing discharge into the flushing canal on outgoing tides; placing 5 pilings across the canal at it's juncture with the Atlantic Ocean to prevent navigation in the canal; and creating a 12,900 sq. ft. mangrove mitigation area by excavating approximately 1,450 cu. yds. from a spoil area to create an area with an elevation of +1.4 Ft. NGVD which will be planted with red mangroves. DER was, in evaluating the application pending before it, charged with the duty to apply, enter alia, the criteria of the 1984 Warren Henderson Wetlands Act, Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Based on DER's decision to issue its permit, it is reasonable to conclude that DER, within its permitting jurisdiction, concluded that construction of the proposed circulation channel would not lower ambient water quality, and would not significantly degrade Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), including those of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. As heretofore noted, the Department does not contend that the subject project will violate any specific criteria within DER's Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, permitting jurisdiction. The Monroe County permits On July 19, 1989, Monroe County issued to the Applicants the building permit, excavation permit, and land clearing permit (development orders), each numbered 8930001680, at issue in these proceedings. As permitted, the project proposed by the Applicants is designed to improve the water quality of Dispatch Creek, particularly in the vicinity of its dead-end terminus, and consists of two phases. Phase I contemplates the installation and operation of an aeration system for at least one year, which will extend from the dead-end terminus of Dispatch Creek toward its midpoint, as well as a water quality monitoring program, until such time as the water quality of the entire creek comports with that of adjacent Class III waters. Should the Applicants be successful in Phase I, they would then be authorized to proceed with Phase II, which would allow the construction of the flushing canal contemplated by the DER permit. As approved by Monroe County, Phase I would consist of the installation of an aeration system around the island, located at the terminus of Dispatch Creek, and in the canal, as well as the suction dredging of loose sediments in the upper reaches of Dispatch Creek. The system would consist of fifteen microporus diffuser/aerators producing approximately 5 CFM per unit, and would be anchored near the bottom to maximize the introduction of dissolved oxygen into the anaerobic water and to optimize water movement. Operation of such system, coupled with the introduction of aerobic bacteria, will shortly reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide dissolved in the water, reduce the concentration of ionized sulfides in solution, retard the growth and propagation of anaerobics in the benthic layer, and activate the growth and propagation of aerobics in all strata. As a consequence, over time, water clarity will improve, which will allow the penetration of sunlight into the benthos. This illumination will spawn the growth of photosynthetic bacteria, as well as phytoplankton, which will aid in the continued aerobic cleansing of the water and bottom sediments. In all, installation and operation of the aeration system, which has proven successful at other locations, should, over time, restore the waters of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, without any adverse impacts to adjacent waters or the park. While operation of the aeration system will, over time, restore the waters of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, the perpetual maintenance of such system would be energy intensive and expensive. for this reason, the Applicants have proposed the Phase II canal, which would maintain, through natural tidal processes, water quality standards within the creek. The canal permitted by Monroe County under Phase II is consistent in all respects with the DER permit except the Monroe County permits require that the canal be sited 20 feet landward of the alignment permitted-by DER into previously scarified uplands. So aligned, the canal would begin at the landward terminus of Dispatch Creeks run easterly within the rear lot lines of at least 15 lots within Harbour Course South subdivision, a platted subdivision, pass through a fringe of red and black mangroves fronting the ocean, and terminate approximately 100 feet seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL) within the boundaries of John Pennekamp State Park. At the point where the canal would join with Dispatch Creek, three 6 foot by 6 foot by 380 foot box culverts would!! be installed with one-way tidal activated flap gates, which would permit waters from the Atlantic to enter Dispatch Creek on a rising tide, but would preclude an exchange of waters from Dispatch Creek on a falling tide. Through such design, sufficient mix and force will be exerted within the waters of Dispatch Creek to maintain Class III water quality standards by natural circulation, and to return the habitat offered by the creek to an oxygen rich system capable of supporting aerobic life. While construction of the canal would be beneficial, by restoring the waters: of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, it is not without cost to the environment. As aligned, the canal, although predominately within previously cleared or scarified uplands, will require excavation through several types of habitat that are either undisturbed or reestablished, including undisturbed buttonwood association, salt marsh, hardwood hammock, transitional habitat, mangroves and submerged lands, and will require the removal of approximately one-tenth of an acre of red and black mangroves, a species of special concern, as well as a number of mahogany trees, twisted air plants, prickly pear cactus and barpar cactus, which are threatened species. Its construction would likewise sever the uplands from the adjacent transitional and wetland areas that traditionally buffer, insulate and protect nearshore waters from runoff from upland areas. Construction of the canal should not, however, adversely impact any threatened or endangered animal species since the proposed alignment is currently a poor habitat for threatened or endangered species, such as the Key Largo woodrat, that may reside in the area, and there is currently no threatened or endangered animal species inhabiting the site. This is not, however, to suggest that the site would not support such species in the future, provided that existing habitat is permitted to continue its progress towards reestablishment. To mitigate the loss of habitat types, the Monroe County permit provides: The agreed mitigation for the loss of all rare and/or endangered habitat types located within the area impacted by the dredging shall be carried out prior to initiation of the dredge project. This shall be based on existing vegetation surveys and an assessment of species currently located within the confines of the project area. Prior to initiation of any dredge activity, a formal inventory of the project site shall be made and a one-to-one replacement program (baked on species rarity or level of endangerment) shall be established and agreed upon. Such an agreement will include defining an appropriate site and the number and type of trees, as well as a maintenance plan for the agreed upon area. Additionally, the DER permit addresses the loss of mangroves, by requiring the establishment of a 12,900 square foot mangrove mitigation area. Under the facts of this case, the mitigation proposed would, assuming the propriety of such development under the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, address the loss of habitat types occasioned by development of the proposed canal. To assure that water quality within Dispatch Creek comports with Class III standards before the canal is dug, and that the creek maintains such standards following construction, the Monroe County permits establish a water quality monitoring program. During the first year, samples will be taken and tests performed on a weekly basis for pH, DO, turbidity, Secchi Disc, temperature, and sulfite; on a biweekly basis for total bacterial count and composition; on a monthly basis for total nitrogen and phosphate; on a quarterly basis for: macro-invertebrates and macrophytes; and on a semiannual basis for heavy metals and pesticides. During the second yearn biweekly testing will be done for DO, temperature, hydrogen sulfide, turbidity and Secchi Disc; quarterly testing for total nitrogen and phosphate, macro- invertebrates, and macrophytes; and, annual testing for heavy metals and pesticides. After the second year, monthly tests will be done for DO, temperature, hydrogen sulfide, turbidity, and Secci Disc; quarterly tests for total nitrogen and phosphate, as well as macro- invertebrates; and annual tests for heavy metals and pesticides. Should the water quality of the creek fail to maintain Class III standards following construction of the canal, the Monroe County permit contains the following special condition: The water quality monitoring program shall be maintained to assess the quality of water in Dispatch Creek subsequent to the dredge project completion. If at any time the water quality fails to meet the standards established by this permit, the one way flushing valve shall be closed by the applicant, and in applicant's failure to do so, by the County. The applicant assumes all costs of closing said valve, whether closed by applicant or the County. Aeration, aid/or other means at the discretion of the applicant, shall be utilized to reestablish quality. The valve shall not be reopened until the water quality standard is met. The purpose of the foregoing condition, as well as the requirement that the waters of Dispatch Creek meet Class III standards before the canal can be dug, is to assure that operation of the canal will not lower ambient water quality within the Outstanding Florida Waters of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and thereby protect the park from any adverse impacts associated with the improved circulation of the creek. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park is a unique and world-renowned resource, attracting millions of visitors each year. At least fifty percent of the activities engaged in by visitors to the park are water-related, including fishing, observational diving and boating. Any degradation of the ambient quality of those waters would be contrary to DER's rules promulgated under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and could adversely impact the natural biota of the park, with a corresponding reduction in the number of visitors to the park and revenues contributed by those visitors to the local economy. Here, the proof demonstrates, consistent with DER's prior permitting, that the subject project, built as proposed, would not lower the ambient water quality of adjacent waters through the discharge of pollutants, and therefore would not adversely affect the park. If anything, the Monroe County permits, with one exception to be discussed infra, offer stronger assurances than the DER permit that adverse impacts will not occur. Notably, under such permits the Applicants must first bring the water quality of the Creek up to Class III standards before the canal can be dug. If the Applicants are ssuccessful at that phase of the project, there will not be excessive nutrient loading within the creek, and the detritus that may thereafter be removed from the creek by improved circulation would not adversely affect water quality or the park. Currently, there are no heavy metals in the sediments or water column of the creek which are at levels above those found naturally, and no pesticides or toxic organics. In sum, there is no basis to conclude, based on the record, that-there is any substance within the waters or sediments of Dispatch Creek that would, upon the waters achieving Class III standards, lower the amient quality of adjacent waters or adversely impact the park. /4 Ostensibly, as an added measure of protection to adjacent waters, the Monroe County permits contain a condition, with which the Applicants concur, that should the waters of Dispatch Creek fail to maintain Class III standards following construction of the canal, the one-way tidal actuated flap gates will be closed. That condition, a noted supra, provides: If at any time the water quality [of the creek] fails to meet the standards established by this permit, the one way flushing valve shall be closed by the applicant, and in the applicant's failure to do so, by the County. The applicant assumes all costs of closing by applicant or the County. Aeration, and/or other means at the discretion of the applicant, shall be utilized to reestablish quality. The valve shall not be reopened until the water quality standards is met. The foregoing condition presumes to address the possibility that should the proposed project fail to function as expected by the experts, as did the current Dispatch Creek fail to function as expected, that such failure will no result in an adverse impact to adjacent waters or the park. In this regard, it is worthy of note that DER's approval of the extension of Dispatch Creek to create a 7,200 foot dead-end canal in the mid-flush the pollutants from the canal into the park. The Applicants presented persuasive testimony, however, through their 1970's was, based on current knowledge, an error, and that today no dead-end system would be approved in excess of soon feet. Monroe County's condition, while preventing the discharge of degraded waters from Dispatch Creek to the park upon closure of the one way flushing valves, fails to address, however, the adverse impacts that could result from its closure. By closure of the valves, the flushing canal would be instantly converted into a 3,000-foot dead-end canal, and would suffer the same water quality problems as similar systems, with probable adverse effects to adjacent waters and the park. Accordingly, so as not to compound the existing error occasion by the extension of Dispatch Creek in the mid-1970's, prudence would dictate a proviso that, if the valves are shut, appropriate monitoring will occur within the waters of the flushing canal to detect any significant degradation of water quality, and that should such degradation pose a threat to adjacent waters or the park, that the Applicants be required, at their expense, to restore promptly the water quality within the flushing canal to Class III standards or restore the area to its present condition. Consistency of the proposed project with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations Lack of plat approval As heretofore noted, the proposed canal would begin at the landward terminus of Dispatch Creek and run easterly within the rear lot lines of at least 15 lots in Harbour Course South subdivision, a platted subdivision, before it passed through fringing mangroves and terminated in the Atlantic Ocean. Currently, the final recorded plats of Harbour Course South subdivision do not reflect the proposed canal, as mandated by Section 177.091(15), Florida Statutes, and the Applicants have not sought to amend the plat to include the proposed canal. Pertinent to this case, the Monroe County Code (MCC), the land development regulations, /5 provides: Sec. 9.5-1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter, the Land Development Regulations, to establish the standards, regulations, and procedures for review and approval of all proposed development of property in unincorporated Monroe County, and to provide a development review process what will be comprehensive, consistent and efficient in the implementation of the goals, policies and standards of the comprehensive plan . . . Sec. 9.5-2. Applicability. General Applicability: The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all land in unincorporated Monroe County. All development of whatever type and character, whether permitted as of right or as a conditional use, shall comply with the development standards and the environmental design criteria set forth in article VII hereof. No development shall be undertaken without prior approval and issuance of a development permit under the provisions of this chapter and other applicable laws and regulations. Sec. 9.5-81. Plat approval and recording required. * * * No building permit, 6/ except for single family detached dwellings and accessory uses thereto, shall be issued for the construction of any building, structure or improvement unless a final plat has been approved in accordance with the provisions of this division and recorded for the lot on which the construction is proposed. * * * (e) If a plat has been previously approved and recorded, technical or minor changes to the plat may be approved by the director of planning. All other changes shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of this Division. Sec. 9.5-94. Amendment of a recorded final plat. An amendment of a recorded final plat or portion thereof shall be accomplished in the same manner as for approval of the plat. Here, the subject permits were issued contrary to the foregoing provisions of the MCC because there was no final plat of record approving the canal as to each affected lot. While the Applicants offered proof, if credited, that the existing plat could be amended to include the canal as a "minor change" upon approval of the Director of Planning, it is noteworthy that no such approval has been obtained. More importantly, it is found that a change in the existing plat to include the canal would not constitute a "technical or minor change," and that formal amendment of the plat would be required. 7/ The provision of the MCC dealing with plat approval, provide a comprehensive scheme to assure, among other things, than the proposed plat is consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the development regulations, and state laws, as well as affording an opportunity for public input. Of import here, the MCCs provide: Sec. 9.5-82. General Standards for Plat Approval. No preliminary or final plat shall be approved unless the plat is consistant with the purposes, goals and objectives of this plan, this chapter, applicable provisions of state law, the provisions governing the development of land set forth in article VII, and the procedures set forth in this article. Sec. 9.5-83. Preliminary Plat Approval. Generally. All applicants for approval of a plat involving five (5) or more lots shall submit a preliminary plat for approval in accordance with the provisions of this section. Application. An application for preliminary approval shall be submitted to the development review coordinator in accordance with the provisions of this section, accompanied by a nonrefundable fee as established from time to time by the board of county commissioners. The application shall contain the information required on a form provided by the director of planning. Staff Review. After a determination that the application for preliminary plat approval is complete under the provisions of section 9.5-44, the development review coordinator shall submit the application to the development review committee, which shall prepare a recommendation and report for the commission. Public Hearing and Action by the Planning Commission. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for preliminary plat approval of a subdivision involving five (5) or more lots, in accordance with the requirements of sections 9.5-46 and 9.5-47. The commission shall review such applications, the recommendation of the development review committee, and the testimony at the public hearing, and shall recommend granting preliminary plat approval, granting approval subject to specified conditions, or denying the application at its next meeting following submittal of the report and recommendation of the development review committee. Effect of Approval of Preliminary Plat. Approval of a preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of a final plat or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with the preparation of such documents as are required by the director of planning for a final plat. Sec. 9.5-84. Final Plat Approval. Generally. All applicants for approval of a plat shall submit a final plat for approval in accordance With the provisions of this section. Application. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to complete, have in final form, and submit to the development review coordinator for final processing the final plat, along with all final construction plans, required documents, exhibits, legal instruments to guarantee performance, certificates properly executed by all required agencies and parties as required in this article, and the recording fee, and any other documents or information as are required by the director of planning. After receipt of a complete application for final plat approval, as determined in accordance with section 9.5-44, development review coordinator shall submit the application and accompanying documents to the development review committee. Review and action by Development Review Committee. The development review committee shall review all applications for final plat approval. b. For a final plat for subdivision involving five (5) or more lots, if the plat conforms to the approved preliminary plate and the substantive and procedural requirements of this chapter, at its next regular meeting or as soon as practical after receipt of a complete application, the development reviews committee shall recommend to the planning commission approval of the final plat or approval with conditions. If the committee finds that the plant does not substantially conform to the approved preliminary plat or the substantive and procedural requirements of these regulations, the committee shall recommend denial, specifying the area(s) of nonconformity. Review and Action by the Planning Commission. The planning commission shall review all applications far final plat approval involving five (5) or more lots and the recommendation of the development review committee. If the commission finds that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and the substantive and procedural requirements of this chapter, the commission shall recommend to the board of county commissioners approval of the final plat, or approval with specified conditions, and shall submit a report and written findings in accordance with section 9.5-47. Public Hearing by the Board of Country Commissioners. The board off county commissioners shall conduct a public hearing on all applications for final plat approval involving five (5) or more lots in accordance with the procedures of section 9.5-46C. Action by the Board of County Commissioners. For proposed subdivisions involving five (5) or more lots the board of county commissioners shall review the application, the recommendations of the development review committee and the planning commission, and the testimony at the public hearing, and shall grant final plat approval, grant approval subject to specified conditions, or deny the application, in accordance with the provisions of section 9.5-47. Sec. 9.5-90.Maintenance of Private Improvements. If any plat of subdivision contains streets, easements, or other improvements to be retained for private use, the final plat for recordation shall indicate to the satisfaction of the director of planning and the county attorney the method or entity by which maintenance of the private improvements shall be performed. As a consequence of Monroe County's failure to comply with the provisions of its regulations which require final plat approval before a building permit may be issued, there has been no review by the Development Review Committee, no public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission, no recommendation of the Planning Commission, and no public hearing before the County Commissioners on the propriety of amending the subject plat to permit the proposed construction, or a resolution, through the plat approval process, as to whether the proposed canal is consistent with, inter alia, the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Monroe County comprehensive plan, as mandated by section 9.5-82(a), MCC. As importantly, where, as here, the proposed canal is to be retained for private use, there is no indication on the recorded plat, 4s required by MCC 9.5-90, of the method or entity by which maintenance of the canal shall be performed. Notably, the property through which the canal will be constructed is not owned by any of the Applicants but, rather, by Driscoll Properties , with whom the Applicants state they have an agreement to permit construction. 8/ Open space requirements and environmental design criteria Pertinent to this case, the MCC further provides: Sec. 9.5-3. Rules of construction. In the construction of the language of this chapter, the rules set out in this section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the board of commissioners as expressed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan or an element or portion thereof, adopted pursuant to chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes (1985). The rules of construction and definitions set out herein shall not be applied to any section of these regulations which shall contain any express provisions excluding such construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. (a) Generally: All provisions, term , phrases and expressions contained in this chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the board of county commissioners may be fully carried out. Terms used in this chapter, unless otherwise specially provided, shall have the meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms. In the interpretation and application of any provision of this chapter, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of this chapter imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than a general provision imposed by the Monroe County Code or another provision of this chapter, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling . . (Emphasis added) Sec. 9-804 (MCLDR) Open space requirements. No land shall be developed, used or occupied such that the amount of open space on the parcel proposed for development is less than the following ratios, nor shall open space be cleared or otherwise disturbed including ground cover, understory, mid-story, and canopy vegetation. All such required areas shall be maintained in their natural condition. The amount of open space required on any parcel for development shall be determined according to each land type and no development activity within any individual land type shall exceed the open space ratio for that land type. Land Type on Existing Open Space Conditions Map Ratio Open Waters 1.00 Mangrove and Freshwater 1.00 Wetlands Salt Marsh and Buttonwood .80 Associations .85 High Hammock (High Quality) .80 High Hammock (Moderate Quality) .60 High Hammock (Low Quality) . 4 Low Hammock (High Quality) .80 Low Hammock (Moderate Quality) .60 Low Hammock (Low Quality) . 4 Palm Hammock .90 Cactus Hammock .90 Pinelands (High Quality) .80 Pinelands (Low Quality) .60 Beach Berm .90 Disturbed . 2 Disturbed with Hammock . 2 Disturbed with Salt Marsh and Buttonwood . 2 Disturbed Beach/Berm . 2 Disturbed with Exotics . 2 Disturbed with Slash Pines . 2 Offshore Islands . 9 (Emphasis added) Sec. 9.5-345. Environmental design criteria. No land, as designated on the existing conditions map and analyzed in accordance with the standards in sections 9.5-339 and 9.5-340, shall be developed, used ~re occupied except in accordance with the following criteria unless the county biologist recommends an authorized deviation from the following criteria in order to better serve the purpose and objectives of the plan and the director of planning or planning commission approves the recommendation as a minor or major conditional use. No recommendation for an authorized deviation from these environmental design criteria shall be made unless the county biologist makes written findings of fact and conclusions of biological opinion which substantiate the need and/or benefits to be derived from the authorized deviation. (m) Mangroves and Submerged Lands: Except as provided in subsection (3), only piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways shall be permitted on submerged lands and mangroves; All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: All structures shall be constructed on pilings or other supports; Bulkheads and seawall shall be permitted only to stabilize disturbed shorelines or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads and seawalls; No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities. (Emphasis added) From the foregoing regulations it is apparent that Monroe County has accorded mangroves the highest of protections. The regulations mandate a 100 percent open space ratio in such areas, and preclude any clearing or other disturbance of such areas. The only exception provided by the regulators, absent approval of an application for a minor or major conditional use, is for the construction of piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways, and then only when such structures are constructed on pilings or other supports to minimize their impact. Here, the proposed development, "permitted as of right" and not as a minor or major conditional use, fails to comply with the Monroe County land development regulations because it will result in the elimination of an existing mangrove community. In addition to the environmental design criteria established for mangroves by section 9.5-345, discussed supra, that section likewise establishes-specific performance standards for the development of any parcel (lot) depending on the habitat type, and where mixed habitat is encountered, requires that development occur on the least sensitive portions of the parcel. Here, while the Applicants did address the habitat types encountered along the canal alignment, the record fails to address the habitat types encountered on each of the platted lots through which the canal will run. Consequently, the Applicants failed to demonstrate that development of those lots, by construction of a canal within their rear boundary, would be consistent with the open space ratios mandated by section 9-804, MCLDR, or the environmental design criteria mandated by section 9.5-345, MCC. C. The Monroe County land development regulations further and implement the Monroe County comprehensive plan. The foregoing land development regulations were adopted by Monroe County, as well as approved by the Department and adopted by the Administrations Commission, to further and implement the standards, objectives and policies of the Monroe County comprehensive plan. That plan evidences a strong commitment to the protection, maintenance, and improvement of the Florida Keys environment. In this regard, the comprehensive plan provides: Sec. 2-104. Nearshore Waters The Florida Keys are dependent nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique, oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then the quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. POLICIES 1. To prohibit land uses that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water- dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on offshore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, offshore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitats of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of legs than four (4) feet, and all designated Aquatic Preserves under Ch. 258.39 et seq. the Florida Statutes. To limit the location of docking facilities to areas which have adequate circulation and tidal flushing. To protect wetland and transitional areas that serve to buffer, insulate and protect nearshore waters from run- off from upland areas. To prohibit the discharge of any pollutant directly or indirectly into nearshore waters. For the purposes of this policy, indirect discharge into nearshore waters shall include surface runoff, surface spreading or well injection of any effluent that does not meet state or federal standards for point and non-point discharges. To monitor nearshore water quality to ensure that growth and envelopment is not degrading nearshore water quality. To encourage the rehabilitation of canals and other water bodies where water quality has deteriorated. Sec. 2-105. Wetlands and Associated Systems Wetlands are an essential element of the Florida Keys and they play several vital roles. Wetlands serve as principal habitats for a wide variety of plants and animals, including juvenile forms of several commercially-exploited species of seafood. In addition, wetland plants play an important role in pollution control through nutrient uptake, and in primary production control through nutrient uptake, and in primary production for food webs. Wetland plants also serve as important natural buffers to the onslaught of storm-driven winds and water. OBJECTIVE To protect and maintain the functional integrity of wetlands and associated transitional areas within the Florida Keys. POLICIES To prohibit the destruction, disturbance or modification of any wetland or associated transition area, except where it can be demonstrated that the functional integrity of a wetland or associated transitional area will not be significantly adversely affected by such disturbance or modification. Marine Resources The great value attributed to Monroe County's marine resources is due to their crucial role in the local economy, and in providing a wide range of natural amenities and services. Health and integrity of the marine system is a fundamental prerequisite if these resources are to continue to provide social, economic, and environmental benefits that we have at times taken for granted. Mangroves, seagrasses, and coral reefs, all of which are susceptible to pollution and dredging, are extremely important in providing food and shelter for myriad forms of marine life, providing storm protection, and maintaining water quality. If uses and activities such as dredge and fill, destruction of natural vegetation, use of pesticides and fertilizers, improper sewage and solid waste disposal continue indiscriminately and uncontrolled; the ability of the marine system to function effectively will deteriorate, thereby resulting in the loss of many natural services and socioeconomic benefits to society. Therefore, it is imperative that such uses and activities be carefully regulated so as to insure conservation and protection of resources and long-term maintenance of their productivity. Marine Resources Management Policies Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in the economy, the protection, conservation, and management of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the County's utmost attention. In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources, emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine ecosystem. To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation; and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of the marine system. * * * Land and water activities which are incompatible with the preservation of marine resources because of their potential adverse effects will be prohibited, restricted, or carefully regulated depending upon the nature of activity and the extent of potential impact. * * * 3.2. Dredging and/or filling associated with maintenance or necessary water- dependent public projects shall be minimized and carefully managed to prevent unnecessary adverse environmental impact. The County will develop and enforce stringent development regulations to minimize water pollution from point and non-point sources in an effort to: improve and maintain quality of coastal waters. . Marine grass beds, mangrove communities, and associated shoreline vegetation will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Removal of vegetation or modification of natural patters of tidal flow and nutrient input, cycling and export should be considered only in the case of overriding public interest. The County will encourage creation and restoration of marine grass beds, and mangrove communities in areas which could support such growth and could potentially enhance the environmental quality. As far as possible, natural patterns of gradual and dispersed runoff will be maintained. Land and water activity in the vicinity of stress areas (coral, grass bed, and inshore water quality) as identified and illustrated in the Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study and as may be discovered during any future study will be carefully controlled and regulated in an effort to arrest further deterioration. Research and study directed toward alleviating the stresses and restoring their condition to natural healthy state will be encouraged arid supported. Marine Resources Areas of Particular Concern Site-specific Designations Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve. * * * Management Policies: B. Development activity on Upper and Lower Matecumbe Keys, including dredging and filling will be prohibited so as not to degrade the waters of the Preserve. * * * 3. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary. Management Policies: * * * B. Development activity on Key Largo, including dredging and filling, urban runoff water, and the use of septic tanks will be controlled and regulated in order to minimize stresses which result in cater quality deterioration. Generic Designations All marine grass beds in waters off the Florida Keys. All patch reef coral and other reef formations found in the surrounding waters off the Keys. All shore-fringing mangrove and associated vegetation extending up to 50 feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangrove. Management Policies A. These biotic communities will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Natural Vegetative Resources The diverse and often unique plant associations of the Florida Keys are a vital element of Monroe County's natural system and economic structure. The natural functions performed by these plant communities with1 regard to marine resources, unique and endangered wildlife, shoreline stabilization, filtering of urban runoff and scenic value make them vital elements in maintainance of the urban structure and attractions for the tourist base of Monroe County's economy. Natural Vegetation Management Policies In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations; to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. 3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree possible. 8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. Consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan, the Monroe County land development regulations further the standards, policies and objectives of the plan to protect, maintain and improve the Florida Keys environment. In this regard, the provisions of the regulations requiring final plat approval before a development order may issued provide assurance that the proposed activity will be -consistent with the comprehensive plan, the land development regulations, and applicable provisions of state law. Likewise, pertinent to this case, the provisions of section 9-864, MCLDR, regarding open space requirements, and section 9.5-345, regarding environmental design criteria, further the plan's policy to minimize the destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape, and to preserve to the maximum degree possible areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetation, such as mangroves and associated vegetation, and to permit such removal only in cases of overriding public interest. Here, while it cannot be concluded, as advocated by the Department, that the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations prohibit, under any circumstances, construction of the subject canal, it must be concluded, at this stage, that construction of the canal has not been demonstrated to be consistent with the plan and regulations. To be consistent, the Applicants would have to secure final plat approval for the canal, through the plat amendment process; a minor or major conditional use approval, as appropriate, as mandated by, inter alia, section 9 .5-345, MCC, for destruction of the mangrove community; and demonstrate that excavation of the canal on each of the platted lots would be consistent with the open space ratios of section 9- 804, MCLDR, and the environmental design criteria of section 9.5-34, MCC, or secure a conditional use as required by section 9.5-34-5, MCC. Amendment to the application post hearing In their proposed recommended order, submitted post hearing, the Applicants propose that the hearing officer recommend that, as a condition, the proposed canal terminate at the line of mean high water instead of extending approximately 100 feet into the boundaries of John Pennekamp State Park. The ostensible reason for the Applicants' request is their desire to eliminate the need for seeking approval from the Department of Natural Resources for intrusion into the boundaries of the park, and thereby shorten the time needed to secure all governmental approvals. While the Applicants did elicit testimony at hearing, albeit on rebuttal, that termination of the canal at the mean high water line would not significantly affect its performance as a flushing canal due to the extreme porosity of the caprock, the proof is not persuasive that the subject permits should be so limited or conditioned. Notably, the opinion that was offered in this regard was that of an expert hydrographic engineer who directed his remarks solely from a hydrographic viewpoint. The Applicants offered no testimony or other proof that would address the potential impacts, in any, that might occur to, inter alia, water quality or the biota, should the canal be terminated or closed in such a fashion. Under the circumstances, the Applicants failed to persuasively demonstrate that such amendment or condition is appropriate. This finding is not, however, preclusive of their applying for such modification to Monroe County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order sustaining Monroe County's issuance of the subject permits in so far as they relate to Phase I of the proposed project, and reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits in so far as they relate to Phase II of the proposed project. It is further recommended that such final order specify those items set forth in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law, as the changes necessary that would make the Applicants' proposal eligible to receive the requested permits for Phase II of their proposal. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October 1990.
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact 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.
