The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On June 15, 1977, Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) filed application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to relocate 5,188 linear feet of an existing canal commonly referred to as Cypress Strand Canal in Manatee County, Florida. The application and accompanying drawings show that the scope of the project is not merely limited to relocation of the canal, but other dredge and fill activities in the surrounding area incident to the construction of a highway interchange over State Road 64 approximately four and one-half miles east of Bradenton, Florida. On March 15, 1978, DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the application pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. In its notice, the extent of the project was described as follows: PROJECT: To construct an interchange where I-75 will intersect SR-64 by: filling 5,188 linear feet of a channelized cypress stand by placing 27,100 cubic yards of fill in the existing ditch; excavation of 38,250 cubic yards of material to create a new ditch 4,455 feet long; placement of 195,176 cubic yards of fill in an existing borrow pit to construct a road causeway with 241 linear feet of 72 inch RCP and 288 linear feet of 54 inch RCP placed under the causeway to provide water exchange; placement of 161 linear feet of double 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of SR-64; placement of 292 linear feet of 8 ft. by 7 ft. box culvert in the new ditch for the crossing of I-75; placement of two 24 inch and one 42 inch pipe to drain runoff from the interchange into the new ditch. The notice also stated that the proposed permit would be subject to certain conditions, including the placement of silt screens downstream from any construction, completion of ditch (canal) relocation and box culvert construction prior to placing fill in the existing canal, sodding of side slopes of causeway fill, and submission of weekly monitoring reports of turbidity before and during construction at certain locations. The letter provided that if monitoring revealed apparent violations of state water quality standards for turbidity, construction activities must cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. The letter also required that state water quality standards prescribed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, must be met by the DOT. (Exhibits 21 -22) The general area surrounding the project site consists of partially wooded pasture land and some residential development in the southwest portion. A cypress "head" consisting of almost eight acres lies east of the existing Cypress Strand Canal on the south side of SR-64 in the area where the relocated canal is proposed. The proposed roadway also will go through part of this cypress area. The bald cypress trees there are quite old and most reach a diameter of eight to ten feet. It is considered to be one of the few cypress stands to be found in Manatee County. In order to avoid the construction of bridges for the proposed highway in this area, DOT plans to fill approximately five and one-half acres with consequent removal of most of the existing trees in the filled area. Although there is standing water in the cypress hammock area, only an insignificant amount of surface water flows from there to the canal due to the higher elevation of the canal. It was for this reason that the DER supervisor of the dredge and fill section determined that the cypress head was not contiguous to waters regulated by the department. This decision, which was adopted by the Director of the DER Division of Environmental Permitting, in effect, overruled a recommendation by a DER field representative who had conducted an appraisal of the application and determined that the cypress head acts as a preliminary filtering are before the waters empty into the cypress creek salt marsh which then flows into the Manatee River. Expert testimony establishes that the DER position is correct in this respect and that only an insignificant amount of water leaves the cypress pond area into the canal. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams, Wanielista, Exhibits 6-13, 17, 18, supplemented by Exhibits 15-16, 20.) On the north side of SR 64, the proposed relocated canal and roadway would be constructed through a "borrow pit" which covers approximately 39 acres. It is proposed to fill approximately 12 acres of this area. The remainder will contain water which acts as a "kidney" to filtrate water flowing from the canal and this area will be more than sufficient to adequately perform such a function. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibits 17-18.) The proposed roadway and ramps at the interchange over SR 64 are designated to retard or slow down the surface water movement to minimize degradation of water quality. To this end, the amount of exposed earth fill will be limited to the extent possible, and after the fill is placed in position, various types of erosion control will be accomplished, such as sodding slopes and building earth berms along the top of the roadway. Hay bales will be placed at the "toe" of the slopes during construction to further retard water movement and the introduction of sediment into waterways. Silt barriers termed "Florida diapers" which consist of a floating barrier of vinyl material will be placed strategically to prevent movement of silt past the barrier. This type of screening has proved to be effective in the past in situations involving relatively still water. Although various nutrients, metals, and chemicals will accumulate on the roadway and slopes during operations, the foregoing methods of retarding flow will serve as filters to reduce degradation of water quality. Additionally, depressions will be made in median areas to permit percolation into the roadway fill material. The "infield" or areas inside the circular ramps, consisting of approximately 20 acres, will be vegetated by the planting of some 150 cypress trees. The 80-foot-wide median area will also be vegetated. The concrete box culverts for the crossing of the proposed roadway will replace some 550 feet of the existing canal and will cause a somewhat accelerated flow of water. Overall, however, in the opinion of Respondents' expert witness, runoff from the interchange area will not measurably increase pollution in the Cypress Strand Canal or the Manatee River. It is his view that much of the water will percolate into the interchange ground area and that any remaining flow will result in 90 percent removal of pollutants by the various proposed methods of erosion control. In fact, the expert is of the view that the project is "overdesigned" at the present time and that the interchange infield design plus the filtering action that will take place in the borrow pit is more than sufficient to insure minimum degradation of water quality. (Testimony of Allen, Wanielista, Exhibit 13, 23.) All contracts for DOT roadway construction involve a special clause termed "Erosion Control and Pollution Abatement" that requires the building contractor to perform the various erosion control measures connected with the project. At a preconstruction conference, the contractor is required to tell DOT the specific manner in which such measures will be accomplished. During the construction phase, representatives of DER monitor the progress and recommend any necessary changes to meet State water quality requirements. Similar monitoring is required after construction and during operation of the roadway for the life of the permit. Although no precise data on the extent of any water degradation can be obtained until after construction commences, past experiences of the DER with the standard DOT construction contracts have proved the measures taken thereunder effectively maintain water quality standards. On this basis, the DER determined that DOT had provided reasonable assurances that construction of the interchange would not result in exceeding State water quality standards. (Testimony of Allen, McWilliams.) Various objections against granting the requested permit have been expressed by members of the public and environmental groups. Although most of these witnesses acknowledge the need for the I-75 extension, they were of the opinion that the roadway should be relocated to the east away from the cypress wetlands area. Additionally, written communications received in evidence from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Florida Division of Forestry, Manatee Health Department, and the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service raised objections to the proposed project based upon the elimination of the Cypress Stand area and recommended either relocation of the interchange or preservation of the existing wetlands. (Testimony of Duisburg, Belmont, Miller, Flisik, Matey, Quy, Exhibits 4, 14-16, 19.) Other public witnesses representing the City Council of Palmetto, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, Florida, Manatee County Chamber of Commerce, City Commission of Bradenton, Florida, and private interests recommended approval of the application. The testimony of these witnesses and various resolutions from governmental bodies primarily focused on the urgent need for construction of the I-75 interchange to promote the economic and general welfare of the area residents and promote safety on the highways. (Testimony of Gallon, Holland, Prather, Neal, Price, Reasoner, Coates, Wiseman, T. Harllee, Jr., T. Harllee, Pinardi, Harden, Exhibits 1-3, 5, 24.)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jay Landers, Jr. Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Anderson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Judith Smith Kavanaugh, Esquire 543 Tenth Street, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
Findings Of Fact On or about May 3, 1978, the petitioner filed with the respondent an application for dredge and fill permits and for a water quality certificate to allow petitioner to complete a planned residential community on and adjacent to Marco Island, Florida. The application encompasses approximately 17,000 acres of petitioner's property, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were expended by petitioner in preparing the application. On November 28, 1979, respondent issued a notice of "intent to deny" the permit application. Among the grounds for denial cited in the nine page "intent to deny" are that the petitioner ". . .has not provided the Department with affirmative reasonable assurance, as required by Subsection 17-4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code, that the immediate and the long-term impacts of this project will not violate State Water Quality Standards." Similar language concerning assurance of water quality standards appears throughout the "intent to deny," as does the Department's assertion of dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over the proposed development areas. Specific subsections and paragraphs of regulatory rules concerning jurisdiction are not identified in the Department's notice of "intent to deny." The respondent's "intent to deny" is the subject of pending administrative proceedings between these same parties in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Nos. 79-2471 and 80-683. In those proceedings, the petitioner is contesting, inter alia, the Department's application of the rules under challenge herein. By affidavit, the respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Standard Permitting, testified as follows: "I am personally aware that dredge and fill activities often result in violations of water quality standards, result in adverse impacts to and create potentially harmful conditions for animal and plant life, result in the alteration of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of waters, and result in the emission of water contaminants."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered dismissing the petition filed herein and denying Petitioners' application. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February,1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Gudrun Maria Nickel, Esquire Bougainvillea Building Route 1, Box 527-A Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On May 3, 1978, the petitioner filed with the respondent an application for dredge and fill permits and a water quality certificate to allow petitioner to complete its planned residential community on and adjacent to Marco Island, Florida. the petitioner expended in excess of $100,000.00 in preparing the permit application. The proposed project involves some 4,000 acres of development on approximately 17,000 acres of land owned by the petitioner. On November 28, 1979, after seeking and obtaining additional information from the petitioner, the respondent issued its notice of "intent to deny" the permit application. The Department claims jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Section 17-4.28 and 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code. The nine page "intent to deny" specifically cites Rule 1704.28(3), Florida Administrative Code, and concludes that state water quality standards will be violated. Beyond that regulatory citation, the "intent to deny" does not specify by rule number which of the water quality standards the Department feels would be violated by the proposed project. However, the "intent to deny" does conclude that the area proposed for development will include "approximately 1,500 acres of uplands and approximately 2,600 acres of waters of the State, submerged lands of waters of the State, and transition zone of submerged lands of waters of the State. In discussing the overall impact from the project as a whole, the respondent notes that the intertidal shoreline areas are utilized by wading birds and that the mangrove tidelines provide a vital habitat for fish and wildlife. In discussing the specific work areas, the respondent concludes that the destruction of the extensive freshwater marsh system would eliminate a significant habitat intensely utilized by a wide variety of birds. The "intent to deny" further concludes that the development of the proposed work area would be expected to violate state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The respondent's "intent to deny" is the subject of a pending administrative proceeding between these same parties in Case Numbers 79-2471 and 80-683. In those proceedings the petitioner is contesting, inter alia, the respondent's application of the rules under challenge in this proceeding. Although petitioner challenges other rules of the Department, the testimony adduced at the hearing concerned only those rules relating to water quality standards; to wit: Rules 17-3.05, 17-3.08(4) and 17-3.09(3). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are an important gauge of the existing quality of water and the ability of a water body to support a well-balanced aquatic animal life. A concentration of at least 5.0 parts per million (or milligrams per liter) is needed to support a well-balanced fish population, and a concentration of 4.0 mg/1 is about the lowest which will support a varied fish population. There are numerous natural factors which affect the concentration of dissolved oxygen in surface water bodies. Such factors include physical transfer between the water and the atmosphere (aeration), the limit of a water body's ability to absorb oxygen (saturation value), the amount of oxygen used to decompose dead material, photosynthesis of aquatic plants and the actual vertical location of the sampling. These factors are influenced by many variables, such as wind, temperature, stratification, salinity, the season of the year, the time of the day, rainfall, water clarity, mixing and flushing. The level of dissolved oxygen can vary significantly in the same body of water during one twenty-four hour period. A balance of dynamic, natural processes causes dissolved oxygen levels to vary extensively in different water bodies and within the same water body during different times of the day and during different seasons of the year. Some of the water bodies in the Marco Island area contain dissolved oxygen values below 4.0 parts per million (or milligrams per liter) during at least a portion of a twenty-four hour period. This is due to natural, as opposed to manmade, causes. A water body containing levels of dissolved oxygen less than 4.0 milligrams per liter does not necessarily indicate a discharge of contaminants into that water body. The parties have stipulated that the Final Order rendered by the Department of Environmental Regulation in the case of Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 79-1602R (July 7, 1980), accurately represents the Department's position with respect to its authority to consider wildlife and other biological factors in reviewing permit applications pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent, Polk County Board of Commissioners (Polk County or County) has provided Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), with reasonable assurances that the activities Polk County proposed to conduct pursuant to Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4419803.000 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Rules 40D-4.301, and 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative Code. (All rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.)
Findings Of Fact Events Preceding Submittal of ERP Application The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system dates back to at least the 1920's, and has been altered and modified over time, especially as a result of phosphate mining activities which occurred on OFP property in the 1950's-1960's. The system is on private property and is not owned and was not constructed by the County. Prior to 1996, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system was in extremely poor repair and not well- maintained. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system originates at Eagle Lake, which is an approximately 641-acre natural lake, and discharges through a ditch drainage system to Lake Millsite, which is an approximately 130-acre natural lake. Lake Millsite drains through a series of ditches, wetlands, and ponds and flows through OFP property through a series of reclaimed phosphate pits, ditches and wetlands and ultimately flows into Lake Hancock, which is an approximately 4500-acre lake that forms part of the headwaters for the Peace River. The drainage route is approximately 0.5 to 1 mile in overall length. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system is one of eight regional systems in the County for which the County and SWFWMD have agreed to share certain funding responsibilities pursuant to a 1996 letter agreement. To implement improvements to these drainage systems, Polk County would be required to comply with all permitting requirements of SWFWMD. During the winter of 1997-1998, Polk County experienced extremely heavy rainfall, over 39 inches, as a result of El Nino weather conditions. This unprecedented rainfall was preceded by high rainfalls during the 1995-1996 rainy season which saturated surface waters and groundwater levels. During 1998, Polk County declared a state of emergency and was declared a federal disaster area qualifying for FEMA assistance. Along the Lake Eagle and Millsite Lake drainage areas, septic tanks were malfunctioning, wells were inundated and roads were underwater. The County received many flooding complaints from citizens in the area. As a result of flooding conditions, emergency measures were taken by the County. The County obtained SWFWMD authorization to undertake ditch cleaning or vegetative control for several drainage ditch systems in the County, including the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system. No SWFWMD ERP permit was required or obtained for this ditch cleaning and vegetative control. During its efforts to alleviate flooding and undertake emergency ditch maintenance along the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage route, the County discovered a driveway culvert near Spirit Lake Road which was crushed and impeding flow. The evidence was unclear and contradictory as to the size of the culvert. Petitioner's evidence suggested that it consisted of a 24-inch pipe while evidence presented by the County and by SWFWMD suggested that it was a 56-inch by 36-inch arched pipe culvert. It is found that the latter evidence was more persuasive. On February 25, 1998, the County removed the crushed arched pipe culvert at Spirit Lake Road and replaced it with two 48-inch diameter pipes to allow water to flow through the system. The replacement of this structure did not constitute ditch maintenance, and it required a SWFWMD ERP. However, no ERP was obtained at that time (although SWFWMD was notified prior to the activity). (One of the eight specific construction items to be authorized under the subject ERP is the replacement of this culvert.) Old Florida Plantation, Ltd. (OFP) property also experienced flooding during February 1998. OFP's property is situated along the eastern shore of Lake Hancock, and the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system historically has flowed across the property before entering Lake Hancock. In the 1950's and 1960's, the property was mined for phosphate. The mining process destroyed the natural vegetation and drastically altered the soils and topography, resulting in the formation of areas of unnaturally high elevations and unnaturally deep pits that filled with water. OFP purchased the property from U.S. Steel in 1991. The next year OFP initiated reclamation of the property, which proceeded through approximately 1998. In 1996, OFP applied to the County for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI). OFP blamed the flooding on its property in 1998 on the County's activities upstream, claiming that the property had never flooded before. But upon investigation, the County discovered a 48-inch diameter pipe on OFP property which, while part of OFP's permitted drainage system, had been blocked (actually, never unopened) due to OFP's concerns that opening the pipe would wash away wetlands plants recently planted as part of OFP's wetland restoration efforts. With OFP and SWFWMD approval, the County opened this pipe in a controlled manner to allow flowage without damaging the new wetlands plants. Following the opening of this blocked pipe, OFP property upstream experienced a gradual drop in flood water levels. When the water level on OFP's property stabilized, it was five feet lower and no longer flooded. Nonetheless, OFP continues to maintain not only that the County's activities upstream caused flooding on OFP property but also that they changed historic flow conditions. This contention is rejected as not being supported by the evidence. Not only did flooding cease after the 48-inch pipe on OFP's property was opened, subsequent modeling of water flows also demonstrated that the County's replacement of the crushed box culvert at the driveway on Spirit Lake Road as described in Finding 8, supra, did not increase flood stages by the time the water flows into the OFP site and did not cause flooding on OFP property in 1998. (To the contrary, OFP actions to block flows onto its property may have contributed to flooding upstream.) On October 6, 1998, the County entered into a contract with BCI Engineers and Scientists to initiate a study on the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system, identify options for alleviating flooding along the system and prepare an application for an ERP to authorize needed improvements to the system. Prior to the County's submittal of an ERP application, SWFWMD issued a conceptual ERP to OFP for its proposed wet detention surface water management system to support its proposed DRI on the OFP property. OFP's conceptual permit incorporated the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system and accommodated off-site flowage into the system. Before submitting an ERP application to SWFWMD, the County had communications with representatives of OFP concerning an easement for the flow of the drainage system through OFP property. In March 1999, the County reached an understanding with OFP's engineering consultant whereby OFP would provide the County with an easement across OFP lands to allow water to flow through to Lake Hancock. In turn, the County would: construct and pay for a control structure and pipe east of OFP to provide adequate flowage without adversely affecting either upstream or downstream surface waters; construct and upgrade any pipes and structures needed to convey water across OFP property to Lake Hancock; and provide all modeling data for OFP's review. The ERP Application Following completion of the engineering study, the County submitted ERP Application No. 4419803.000 for a Standard General ERP to construct improvements to the Eagle-Millsite- Hancock drainage system on August 18, 1999. Eight specific construction activities are proposed under the County's project, at various points along the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system as follows: 1) Add riprap along channel bottom; 2) Modify culvert by replacing 56-inch by 36- inch arch pipe by two 48-inch pipes (after-the-fact, done in 1998, as described in Finding 8, supra); 3) Add riprap along channel bottom; 4) Add box, modify culvert by replacing existing pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 5) add riprap along channel bottom; 6) Add weir, modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 7) Add box and modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes; 8) Modify existing weir. Under the County's application, construction activities Nos. 6, 7, and 8 would occur on OFP property. In addition, it was proposed that surface water would flow across OFP's property (generally, following existing on-site drainage patterns), and it was indicated that flood elevations would rise in some locations on OFP's property as a result of the improvements proposed in the County's application. (Most if not all of the rise in water level would be contained within the relatively steep banks of the lakes on OFP's property--the reclaimed phosphate mine pits.) In its application, the County stated that it was in the process of obtaining easements for project area. As part of the ERP application review process, SWFWMD staff requested, by letter dated September 17, 1999, that the County clarify the location of the necessary rights-of-way and drainage easements for the drainage improvements and provide authorization from OFP as property owner accepting the peak stage increases anticipated in certain OFP lakes as a result of the County's proposed project activities. On September 28, 1999, OFP obtained a DRI development order (DO) from the County. In pertinent part, the DRI DO required that OFP not adversely affect historical flow of surface water entering the property from off-site sources. Historical flow was to be determined in a study commissioned by the County and SWFWMD. The DO appeared to provide that the study was to be reviewed by OFP and the County and approved by SWFWMD. Based on the study, a control structure and pipe was to be constructed, operated and maintained by the County at the upstream side of the property that would limit the quantity of off-site historical flow, unless otherwise approved by OFP. OFP was to provide the County with a drainage easement for this control structure and pipe, as well as a flowage easement from this structure, through OFP property, to an outfall into Lake Hancock. The DO specified that the flowage easement was to be for quantitative purposes only and not to provide water quality treatment for off-site flows. The DO required OFP to grant a defined, temporary easement prior to first plat approval. In its November 11, 1999, response to SWFWMD's request for additional information, the County indicated it would obtain drainage easements and that it was seeking written acknowledgment from OFP accepting the proposed increases in lake stages. During the ERP application review process, the County continued efforts to obtain flowage easements or control over the proposed project area and OFP's acknowledgment and acceptance of the increase in lake stages. At OFP's invitation, the County drafted a proposed cross-flow easement. But before a binding agreement could be executed, a dispute arose between OFP and the County concerning other aspects of OFP's development plans, and OFP refused to enter into an agreement on the cross- flow easement unless all other development issues were resolved as well. On August 4, 2000, in response to SWFWMD's request that the County provide documentation of drainage easements and/or OFP's acceptance of the increased lake stages on OFP property, the County submitted a proposed and un-executed Perpetual Flowage and Inundation Easement and an Acknowledgment to be signed by OFP accepting the increased lake stages. On August 7, 2000, the OFP property was annexed by the City of Bartow (the City). On October 16, 2000, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1933-A approving OFP's DRI application. The City's DO contained essentially the same provision on Off- Site Flow contained in the County's DO. See Finding 18, supra. However, the City's DO specified that the historical flow study was required to be reviewed and approved by OFP (as well as by the County and by SWFWMD). OFP has not given formal approval to historical flow studies done to date. On October 6, 2000, SWFWMD issued a Notice of Final Agency Action approving Polk County ERP No. 4419803.000. Permit Specific Condition No. 7 provides that "all construction is prohibited within the permitted project area until the Permittee acquires legal ownership or legal control of the project area as delineated in the permitted construction drawings." As a result of this permit condition, the County cannot undertake construction as authorized under the Permit until any needed easement or legal control is obtained. Precise Easement Route Approximately two months before final hearing, a dispute arose as to the precise cross-flow easement route proposed by the County. OFP had understood that the County's proposed route was based on a detailed survey. But closer scrutiny of the County's proposed route indicated that it cut corners of existing lakes on OFP's property, crossed residential lots proposed by OFP, and veered north into uplands (also proposed for residential use) in the western portion of the route before looping south and then north again to the outfall at Lake Hancock. Information subsequently revealed in the course of discovery suggested that the County's proposed route may have been based on pre-reclamation topography of OFP's property. After OFP recognized the implications of the cross- flow easement route being proposed by the County, OFP provided the County with several different alternative easement routes through the OFP property. While agreement as to the precise route has not yet been reached, the precise route of the easement is not significant to the County, as long as water can flow across OFP property to Lake Hancock and so long as the County does not have to re-locate existing ditches. Such adjustments in the location of the proposed flowage easement would not affect SWFWMD staff's recommendation for permit issuance, as long as it covered the defined project areas. In addition, OFP's current site plan is a preliminary, conceptual plan subject to change before it is finalized. Regardless what cross-flow easement route is chosen, it will be temporary and subject to modification when OFP's development plan is finalized. If the County is unable to not negotiate a flowage easement across OFP property, it could obtain whatever easement is required through use of the County's eminent domain powers. The County's acquisition of an easement to accommodate a flowage route and anticipated increased stage on OFP property gives reasonable assurance that any stage increases will not cause adverse impacts to OFP property and gives reasonable assurance that the County will have sufficient legal control to construct and maintain the improvements. Project Area The County applied for a Standard General Permit and specified a total project area of 0.95 acre. This acreage reflects the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches in the preexisting Eagle-Millsite-Hancock system. It does not reflect the entire acreage drained by that system (approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres). It also does not reflect the area of the cross-flow easement, which the County has yet to obtain. When determining project size for purposes of determining the type of permit applicable to a project, SWFWMD staff considers maximum project area to be limited to the acreage owned or controlled by the applicant. In addition, since this is a retrofit project for improvement of an existing drainage system not now owned or controlled by the County, SWFWMD staff only measured the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches. Future easements necessary for future maintenance of the system were not included. When OFP applied for its conceptual ERP for its proposed DRI, the project area was considered to be the acreage owned by OFP. The rest of the basin draining through OFP's property to Lake Hancock (again, approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres) was not considered to be part of the project area. Water Quantity Impacts The County's project will retrofit certain components of the same drainage system which OFP will utilize for surface water management and treatment pursuant to its conceptual ERP. Modeling presented in the County's application demonstrates that there will be some rises and some lowering of some of the lake levels on OFP's property during certain rain events. Anticipated rises are lower than the top of banks authorized in OFP's conceptual permit; hence the system will continue to function properly. While there are some differences in the County's permit application and OFP's conceptual permit application concerning modeling estimates of flow rates through OFP property, the differences are minor and are attributed to differences in modeling inputs. The County used more detailed modeling information. Any such differences are not significant. Differences in flow rates provided in the County's proposed permit and in OFP's conceptual permit do not render the permits as incompatible. If the County's permit were issued, any modeling undertaken in connection with a subsequent application by OFP for a construction permit would have to be updated to include the County's improvements to the system. This outcome is not a basis for denial of the County's permit. While the rate at which water will flow through the system will increase, no change in volume of water ultimately flowing through the drainage system is anticipated as a result of the County's proposed improvements. The increased lake stages which are anticipated to occur on OFP property as a result of the County's project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to the receiving waters of Lake Hancock or adjacent lands. The project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, Florida Statutes. Water Quality Impacts No adverse impacts to water quality on OFP property are anticipated from the County's proposed drainage improvements. The project will not add any pollutant loading source to the drainage system and is not expected to cause any algae blooms or fish kills in OFP waters or cause any additional nutrient loading into OFP's surface water management systems. As reclaimed phosphate mine pits, the lakes on OFP's property are high in phosphates. Meanwhile, water quality in upstream in Millsite Lake and Eagle Lake is very good. Off-site flow of higher quality water flushing the OFP lakes will improve the water quality on the OFP site. The County's project will have no adverse impact on the quality of water in the downstream receiving of Lake Hancock (which currently has poor water quality due in large part to past phosphate mining). Upstream of OFP, the project will not cause any adverse water quality impacts and is anticipated to result in positive impacts by lessening the duration of any flooding event and thereby lessening septic tank inundation from flooding. This will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, there is a public benefit to be gained in having the County undertake the proposed drainage and flood control improvements now, rather than waiting for OFP to finalize its plat and construct its development project. The County's proposed improvements do not require any formal water quality treatment system. The improvements are to a conveyance system and no impervious surfaces or other facilities generating pollutant loading will be added. Upstream of OFP, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system flows through natural lakes and wetlands systems that provide natural water quality treatment of the existing drainage basin. OFP expressed concern that the County's improvements to drainage through these areas (including the ditch maintenance already performed in 1998) will increase flow and reduce residence time, thereby reducing natural water quality treatment. But ditch maintenance does not require an ERP, and the County gave reasonable assurances that reduction in natural water quality treatment will not be significant, especially in view of the good quality of the water flowing through the system out of Eagle Lake and Millsite Lake. As a result, it is found that the County's proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that any applicable quality standards will be violated. Indeed, OFP's expert consultant conceded in testimony at final hearing that OFP has no reason to be concerned about the quality of water at present. Rather, OFP's real concern is about water quality in the future. Essentially, OFP is asking SWFWMD to require the County to guarantee OFP that future development in the area will not lead to any water quality problems. Requiring such a guarantee as a condition to issuance of an ERP would go far beyond SWFWMD requirements and is never required of any applicant. Besides being speculative on the evidence in this case, future development in the area will be required to meet applicable SWFWMD water quality requirements. SWFWMD permitting required for such future development would be the proper forum for OFP to protect itself against possible future reduction in water quality (as well as possible future increase in water quantity). Environmental Impacts The drainage ditches to be improved by the County's project were originally constructed before 1984. These upland cut ditches were not constructed for the purpose of diverting natural stream flow, and are not known to provide significant habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions. The functions of the wetlands and surface waters to be affected by the proposed project include conveyance, some water quality treatment, and possibly some wildlife movement or migration functions between the wetlands served by the ditches. Wetland impacts from the project consists of .63 acre of permanent impacts and .21 acre of temporary impacts, for a total of .84 acre of impact. The permanent impacts consist of the replacement of pipes with new structures in the ditches and the addition of rip rap in areas to prevent sedimentation and erosion. The proposed project's anticipated increase in the rate of flow is expected to lessen the duration of any flooding event at the upper end of the drainage system, and at the downstream end is expected to create a subsequent rise in some of the lakes and storage areas on the OFP property during certain rain events. The anticipated rise in some of the reclaimed lakes on OFP property is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the functions that those surface waters provide to fish, wildlife or any threatened or endangered species. The reclaimed lakes subject to rise in water levels for certain rain events are steep-sided and do not have much littoral zone, and little, if any, loss of habitat will result. The County's application provides reasonable assurance that the anticipated stage increase in affected wetlands or surface waters will not adversely affect the functions provided by those wetlands or surface waters. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply, in either the short- term or the long-term. Long-term effects were addressed in Finding 43-51, supra. Short-term water quality impacts anticipated during the construction of the proposed improvements will be addressed through the use of erosion and sediment controls. The proposed project also will not create any adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bird rookery located to the north on OFP property. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bass in OFP's lakes, a concern expressed by OFP relatively recently. To the contrary, since the project will improve water quality in OFP's lakes, the impact on OFP's bass is expected to be positive. OFP raised the issue of a bald eagle nesting site located on its property. The evidence was that a pair of bald eagles has built a nest atop a Tampa Electric Company (TECO) power pole on the property in October of each year since 1996. Each year the pair (which is thought to be the same pair) has used a different TECO power pole. Most of the nests, including the one built in October 2000, have been on poles well south of any construction proposed under the County's ERP and clearly outside of the primary and secondary eagle management zones designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But one year, a nest was built on a pole farther north and possibly within the secondary eagle management zone. OFP presented testimony that U.S. Fish and Wildlife would require OFP to apply for an "incidental take" in order to build homes within the primary eagle protection zones around any of the four poles on which eagles have built nests since 1996; timing of construction of homes within the secondary protection zones may be affected. Even accepting OFP's testimony, there was no evidence as to how U.S. Fish and Wildlife would view construction of the County's proposed drainage improvements on OFP property within those zones. In addition, the evidence was that, in order to accomplish its DRI plans to build homes in the vicinity of the TECO power poles that have served as eagle nests in recent years, without having to apply for an "incidental take," OFP plans to place eagle poles (more suitable for eagle nests than power poles, which actually endanger the eagles) in another part of its property which is much more suitable habitat in order to encourage the eagles to build their nest there. The new location would put the County's proposed construction activity far outside the primary and secondary eagle management zones. Other Permitting Requirements The County's proposed project is capable, based on generally accepted scientific engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The County has the financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity proposed to be undertaken can be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project will cause adverse impacts to any work of the District established under Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the project will not comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established under Chapter 40D-3, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 4419803.000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. McKinley, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Gregory R. Deal, Esquire 1525 South Florida Avenue, Suite 2 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent Telese is the owner and developer of Egret Woods Subdivision on real property contiguous to state waters in Pinellas County, Florida. The property is near the incorporated areas of Indian Shores and Largo. A residential subdivision borders the project locale to the east, and tidal mangrove swamps fringe the property to the west. An intracoastal connecting waterway known as the "Narrows" lies to the west of the swamps. These state waters connect Boca Ceiga Bay and Clearwater Harbor. The proposed subdivision area is an upland strip between the existing subdivision and the tidal swamp adjacent to the "Narrows". The uplands are predominantly vegetated by live oak, saw palmettos and slash pines. In order to develop the property, and to reconfigure lots from a previously platted subdivision, Respondent Telese applied for a permit from DER to fill 0.12 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands located at the development site. The application for the permit represents that 340 cubic yards of clean, non-deleterious sandy loam is needed to fill disturbed high marsh areas and other low areas on the proposed lots. Respondent Telese has also requested permission to install culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that run through the lots before they reach their discharge points outside of the proposed lot lines. The Petitioners are owners of single-family homes within the subdivision to the east known as Whispering Pines Forest, 5th Addition. These property owners filed a Petition in which they disputed the appropriateness of the Notice of Intent to Issue filed by DER on August 21, 1990. In support of their position, the Petitioners identified a number of areas of controversy they contend should cause DER to reverse its preliminary decision to grant the "dredge and fill" permit on this project. Elimination of Natural Drainage The first area of controversy is the Petitioners' contention that their interests are substantially effected by the elimination of natural drainage from their subdivision into the uplands referred to as Egret Woods Subdivision. The entire area was owned by the same developer prior to the creation of Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition. Essentially, the Petitioners allege that a subservient estate was created on these adjacent lands for their surface water drainage purposes which the proposed development eliminates. A review of the Notice of Intent to Issue reveals that culverts are to be placed in two of the open conveyance ditches currently transporting surface water runoff from Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition through the uplands of Egret Woods into the wetlands. While this proposed change in the means of conveyance of the surface water may not affect the volume of water conveyed, it could adversely effect the quality of the water at the discharge points into the wetlands. At hearing, the Petitioners were unable to clearly articulate their concerns about this water quality issue. However, it is intricately interwoven into the surface water management issues. The water quality concern was obliquely referred to in the Biological and Water Quality Assessment Report where DER's application appraiser commented that the proposed conservation easements and the mitigation plantings, which replace the high marsh removed for lot reconfiguration, are sufficient to offset the potential adverse impacts of the requested fill and culvert changes to the existing water quality at the project site. Although this particular water quality issue was properly addressed by DER in its review of the permit application, it was not clearly set forth in the Notice of Intent to Issue. There is no way for a person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision to determine that DER had considered mitigation measures to prevent this adverse effect. A decrease in surface water quality would have been caused by the marsh elimination and the placement of culverts if the marsh had not been replanted, and other mitigative measures had not occurred at the locale. The Petitioners properly requested a formal administrative hearing to address surface water management issues as DER's consideration of the matter was not made clear to them in the Notice of Intent to Issue. The written report that discusses water quality as it relates to the mitigation plan was provided to Petitioner's post-hearing, after a copy of the written appraisal was sent to the Hearing Officer and all parties by DER. Planned Roadway The second area of controversy is the Petitioner's concern about the effects of the planned roadway on their properties. As the planned roadway involves the county, it is not a matter considered in the dredge and fill permit. Neither DER nor the Hearing Officer has subject matter jurisdiction. The Petitioners did not pursue this area of controversy or the road location at hearing based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling that it was not relevant to this permit review. High Water Mark and the Setting of the DER Jurisdictional Line The third area of controversy raised by Petitioners involves their collective concern about a variance in the height of the Mean High Water Line on the property on different documents presented to different agencies. The current survey for DER completed by the surveyor shows the Mean High Water Line at 1.16, while the survey submitted to Pinellas County in 1981 from the same surveyor reads the Mean High Water Line at 1.25. This was explained at hearing by the surveyor. It was his opinion as a professional surveyor that there is no basic difference between these two mean high water lines. Since the survey to the county in 1981, the Mean High Water Line has varied between 3 - 3 1/2 feet in some areas. The same methodology and simple mathematical formula was used by him during the two different surveys which were about eight years apart. The difference in the two surveys is within the tolerance level accepted within the industry and needs no further reconciliation. As a correlative issue, Petitioners raise a concern about the change in DER's jurisdictional line on various documents involving this same site over a number of years. DER's jurisdictional lines have changed since the "Hendersons Wetland Act" enacted on October 1, 1984. The jurisdictional line as depicted on this permit application was established by dominant plant species as defined in Rule 17-301.400, Florida Administrative Code, just prior to the application submission. This was the correct way to determine jurisdiction on the property at this particular point in time. Although the mean high water line may have been determinative of DER's jurisdiction on earlier permits, only the current law applies to the facts of this case. DER reviewed the jurisdictional lines as depicted on the property by Respondent Telese's consultant and found them to be properly placed during the processing of the permit application. Historical DER jurisdictional lines and permit reviews are irrelevant to this permit review as it is based upon the agency's current rules the applicable statutory criteria, and current site conditions. Fill Calculations The fourth area of controversy involves the Respondent's request to place fill on the site. When Petitioners used an engineer's scale to measure the areas to be filled on the permit drawings, their volume calculations reveal that more fill will be needed than represented on the permit application. Petitioners are concerned that this error could cause DER to approve a permit which does not accurately depict site conditions. The actual fill calculations were done by the professional engineer with a computer model based upon average elevations, depth and area. In his professional engineering opinion, his calculations were accurate, which was given great weight by the Hearing Officer. The drawings used by the Petitioners to calculate the required fill for the area were pictorial communications of what the Respondent Telese intended to accomplish at the site. These drawings were designed for descriptive purposes only and were not scaled to the extent that they could be accurately used for fill calculations in the manner applied by Petitioners. The computer modeling used by the professional engineer was the more prudent approach to the on-site fill requirements. De Novo Permit Review Although the wetlands resource permit requested by Respondent Telese is commonly referred to as a "dredge and fill" permit, there is no dredging associated with the project. The proposed placement of fill in the high marsh area of tidal wetlands on the property and the culvert placement requires construction activity in Class III Waters. Water quality impacts to the area will be a short term problem as water turbidity should take place only during construction. Specific conditions regarding construction techniques have been placed in the permit as permit conditions to minimize the impacts. There is no factual dispute as to whether the proposed conservation easement, the replacement and enlargement of the high marsh in another location, the removal of exotics such as Brazilian Pepper trees, and the planting of black mangroves will sufficiently mitigate the adverse impacts on water quality and the public interests at the proposed development. Without the replacement of the disturbed high marsh with high marsh plantings at a 1.91:1 ratio, the enhancement of the property through exotic removal, and the conservation easements at a 132:1 ratio, the Respondent Telese is unable to provide reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest under the statutory criteria established in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. The proposed project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The flooding anticipated by the Petitioners is speculative, and has not been directly related to the fill placement and the culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches. Conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, will not be adversely affected due to the high marsh replacement and the fact that the area provided only marginal wetland habitat prior to the permit application due to the invasion of exotics at the site. Any impact from the proposed project on this public interest criterion is offset by the mitigation plan. The project will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The proposed plantings of black mangroves and the removal of exotics, along with the new high marsh swamp should enhance the productivity of the area. No future projects of a similar nature can be developed at this locale due to the conservation easements the Respondent Telese has consented to provide over the remaining undeveloped property owned by him in the area. These easements will allow the Department to limit and control activities that may be undertaken in these tidal waters to prevent degradation of the site from an environmental standpoint. The mitigation planting schedule provides reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated in the area as a result of culvert placement in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that transport surface water to Class III waters of the state. Balancing of Interests In the "dredge and fill" permit application appraisal, site review, and Notice of Intent to Issue, DER considered and balanced all of the required statutory criteria to determine that the project is not contrary to the public interest or applicable water quality standards. Area of Controversy All of the areas of controversy raised by the Petitioners which are within the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction, have been sufficiently met by the reasonable assurances of Respondent Telese and the permit conditions required by DER. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, it is concluded that the harms anticipated by Petitioners will not occur. Recommendation Regarding the Assessment of Attorneys Fees and Costs Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Notice of Intent to Issue was vague as to how interests were balanced and how the mitigation would offset the adverse impacts that concerned Petitioners. The petition was filed and prosecuted in good faith and addressed legitimate concerns of concerned citizenry who reside on adjacent lands.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended: That a Final Order be entered approving Respondent's Telese's dredge and fill permit number 521715273, pursuant to the Notice of Intent to Issue filed August 21, 1990. That Petitioners should not be assessed attorney fees and costs as they did not participate in these proceedings for an improper purpose. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7035 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Does not allow for change in seasons or conditions. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. Not within Hearing Officer's subject matter jurisdiction. Irrelevant to this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #3. Respondent Telese's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1, #2 and #18. Accepted. See HO #1, #2, #20 and #23. Accepted. See HO #20 and #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22 - #27. Accepted. See HO #13 and #16. Denied. Contrary to fact. See HO #4 - #17. DER's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 - #3. 4. Accepted. See HO #2, #18 and #20. 5. Accepted. See HO #20, #21 and #24. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. 17. Accepted. See HO #19. 18. Accepted. 19. Accepted. See HO #19. 20. Accepted. See HO #21. 21. Accepted. See HO #18. COPIES FURNISHED: Ines D. Degnan 8410-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34636 David R. Chirington 8400-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Alton Jeffcoat 8340-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Carol B. Newton 8450-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Steven M. Siebert, Esquire JOHNSON BLAKELY POPE BOKOR RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a rectangular plot approximately 300 feet (north to south) by 1,300 feet (east to west). The property is within the City of Longwood and is zoned light industrial. The land is undeveloped except for a laminated cabinet factory and warehouse owned by Petitioner. The proposed development includes construction of a paved right-of-way sixty feet wide through the center of the parcel. Entry and exit would be from the east with a cul de sac on the west end. The property would be divided into twenty lots, each facing this street. Petitioner contemplates sale of these lots to light industrial users. A tributary of Soldiers Creek which flows into Lake Jessup and ultimately the St. John's River, separates the eastern one third of the property from the remainder of the parcel. This stream is typically one to three feet deep, with very slow movement. Water in the stream bed becomes virtually stagnant during the dry season. The on-site survey conducted by Respondent's environmental specialist established that the ordinary or mean height water line follows the 52 foot contour, creating a stream bed about 400 feet wide across Petitioner's property. The development proposal calls for filling most of this area, retaining a stream channel one hundred feet wide. Petitioner intends to install four 38" x 60" oval culvert pipes at the stream crossing of the proposed roadway. To control runoff from rain showers, Petitioner plans to construct swells on each side of the roadway and drainage troughs and catch basins are intended to retain runoff pollution. However, during peak rainfall periods, these devices will not prevent direct discharge into the watercourse. Petitioner has not conducted any tests to determine the impact of his proposed project on water quality other than percolation tests associated with the use of septic tanks. The stream is heavily forested with mature hardwood trees. The undergrowth includes buttonbush, royal fern, primrose willow and water tupelo. Clumps of pickerel weed are scattered throughout the stream. The stream bottom consists of one to two feet of leaf litter and accumulated organic muck over firm sand. Respondent's dip net sampling produced numerous least killifish, which are indicative of good water quality. Forested streams and bayheads such as this are natural storage and treatment areas for upland runoff, and tend to reduce the peak runoff discharge to lakes and rivers from rainfall. This, in turn, reduces sedimentation rates and the resultant siltation of downstream waterbodies. The proposed project would eliminate approximately one acre of stream bottom and continuous submerged transitional zone lands. Urban runoff can contain significant amounts of pollutants including nutrients, heavy metals, dissolved solids, organic wastes, and fecal bacteria. In industrial situations, such as that proposed here, concentrations of oils, greases, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and phenolic compounds from tire wear, paving and use of other petroleum products are anticipated. The discharge of these contaminants would be harmful to the plant and animal life in Soldiers Creek and the subject tributary. The proposed project would not only reduce existing vegetation which serves as a sediment trap and natural nutrient filter, but would create an impervious (paved) surface which would accelerate runoff and would, itself, be a source of pollution. Water quality would be further reduced by the introduction of fill material and the canalization of the stream, which would increase its rate of flow. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to Respondent's permitting authority over the proposed fill project. Specifically, Respondent has permitting jurisdiction below the 52 foot contour line which defines the stream bed. See Sections 17-4.02(17), 17-4.02(19) and 17-4.28, F.A.C. Subsections 17-4.28(1) and 17-4.28(3) F.A.C., require Petitioner to establish reasonable assurance that the short term and long term effects of the filling activity will not result in violation of the water quality criteria, standard, requirement and provisions of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Petitioner's stream, Soldiers Creek and Lake Jessup are surface waters within the Class III designation of Section 17-3.081, F.A.C. Sections 17-3.061 and 17-3.121, F.A.C., provide the applicable water quality standards and criteria which Petitioner must provide reasonable assurance of meeting. The standards and criteria limit the amount of various chemicals, nutrients, oils and greases which may be introduced as a result of the proposed activity. The evidence adduced herein established that the proposed project would promote substantial changes in these surface waters, degrading their existing quality. These changes would occur through the introduction of oils, greases and other undesirable chemicals and compounds. Further, Petitioner has conducted no specific testing which would establish reasonable assurance that the water quality standards would be met. Petitioner contends that denial of the permit would amount to inverse condemnation or unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation. Such a determination is beyond scope of this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the petition of Jack Cruickshank for a fill permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1981. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William W. Carpenter, Esquire 830 East Highway 434 Longwood, Florida 32750
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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. On April 19, 1983, Petitioner applied to DER for a permit to dredge approximately 1480 cubic yards to a depth of 4' mean low water to create a boat basin behind his house on the property referenced above, and to construct a walkway and fishing dock encompassing approximately 1,235 square feet. The proposed project lies and would be performed in waters of the State of Florida. On April 25, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that his application was incomplete and that certain specified information was necessary to evaluate the application and to deem it complete. On May 24, 1983, DER received additional information from Petitioner, in response to its request. However, certain information was still lacking, including aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, and consent from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the use of state-owned lands which may be involved in the project. On June 1, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that all of the requested information had not been submitted. Petitioner did not respond to DER's correspondence. On July 19, 1983, DER requested Petitioner to notify DER if he wanted to proceed with his application. Petitioner responded on August 1, 1983, that he needed additional time to supply requested information. On September 20, 1983, Petitioner sought advice from DER about whether he could delete the dredging portion of his project and get approval only for the proposed walkway and dock. DER responded by letter on September 28, 1983, notifying Petitioner that the proposal was a major modification of his application, and enclosing a form to be submitted to DER along with such modification. The letter notified Petitioner that even if only the dock was sought to be permitted, DNR approval would still be required, and DER has no control over the DNR approval process. Petitioner did not contact DER in response to its latest correspondences. On November 28, 1983, DER then issued a notice of intent to deny the application for Petitioner's failure to provide necessary information which would render the application complete and fully reviewable by the DER staff. Petitioner has still not provided aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, or DNR approval to DER, and offered no such evidence at hearing. The aerial photographs are necessary to review the project's potential impacts on surrounding properties and water bodies. The hydrographic survey is essential since Petitioner is proposing to entrain a large body of water which may not be able to meet State water quality standards. DNR approval is required by statute before DER can issue a permit that may involve state-owned lands. The Petitioner's testimony and evidence merely established his belief that he originally thought the dock and channel project exempt, that he thought settlement of federal litigation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and his predecessor in title, permitted the installation of his rip-rap seawall and fill and that, at DER's behest, he later dismantled the dock and partially refilled the hand-dug channel leading to it. Nowhere in Petitioner's case was evidence offered of reasonable assurances that the "pollution events, envisioned by the authority cited below, will not occur, nor that DNR approval of the use of State submerged lands for the project has been secured.
