The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Dames Point Workboats, LLC, is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 20, 2018, and subsequently amended on December 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing ("Petition") with DEP on August 17, 2018. Respondent Workboats is the applicant for the Project. Its business address is 5118 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32226. Workboats' owner, Shafnacker, owns the property located upland of the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Project is proposed to be constructed and operated. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to those statutes. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. Pursuant to section 253.002, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny applications for sovereignty submerged lands leases. The Back Channel and Vicinity of the Project The Project is proposed to be located in the "Back Channel" area of the St. Johns River, directly across from Blount Island. The Back Channel, as a part of the St. Johns River, is classified as a Class III waterbody. It is not designated an Outstanding Florida Water, is not located within an Aquatic Preserve, and is not designated for Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting. The Back Channel is configured in the shape of an inverted "U" and runs between Blount Island and Heckscher Drive, from the southeast corner of Blount Island to the bridges located on the northwest side of Blount Island. It constitutes a portion of the historic main channel of the St. Johns River and was used for all vessel navigation in the river until the Dames Point Cut was dredged through a peninsula to the south, creating Blount Island and a new straight channel to the Atlantic Ocean. Most vessels, including large ships, use the Dames Point Cut for ingress into and egress from the St. Johns River. However, the Back Channel remains navigable and is used for recreational activities and some commercial and industrial navigation. A mix of residential, commercial, and industrial and land uses is located on the north shore of the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. These uses consist of approximately 90 single-family residences having docks, three fish camps/recreational marinas, two restaurants, and docking structures used for mooring inshore shrimping vessels. A docking facility owned by M & M Shrimp and used for mooring shrimping vessels is located on the Back Channel immediately to the west of the Project site. A residence owned by Wood is located on the Back Channel immediately east of the Project site. Four other residences are located immediately east of Wood's residence, and back up to the Back Channel. Most of the shoreline on which these residences are located consists of riprap; however, a small patch of salt marsh borders the shoreline on Wood's residential parcel. Although Blount Island is a heavy industrial port, its northern shoreline on the Back Channel, across from the proposed Project site, consists of relatively undisturbed salt marsh and trees. The northeastern shoreline of the Back Channel generally consists of salt marsh and riprap, with docks constructed along the shoreline. Two bridges connect Blount Island to the mainland a short distance west of the proposed Project. These bridges each have a clearance of approximately ten feet, so they cannot be cleared by large vessels. As a practical matter, this has the effect of limiting the size of vessels that use the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. The Back Channel west of the bridges to the southwestern tip of Blount Island is fronted by heavy industrial uses, and numerous multi-family residential and industrial docking facilities are located in this area. A slow speed, minimum wake zone for boat operations extends 300 feet out into the Back Channel from both the north and south shorelines. The Back Channel is approximately 1,340 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be constructed. The Proposed Project The proposed Project will be constructed and operated4/ as a commercial tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/ offloading facility. The Project is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands5/ and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and sovereignty submerged lands lease are required for construction and operation of the Project.6/ The Project will be located waterward of the mean high water line on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to four upland waterfront parcels that are owned by Shafnacker. These lots are: Lot 6 (5100 Heckscher Drive, RE 159971 0000); Lot 7 (5110 Heckscher Drive, RE 159972 0000); Lot 8 (5118 Heckscher Drive, RE 159973 0000); and Lot 9 (5120 Heckscher Drive, RE 159974 0000). Collectively, these lots have approximately 425 feet of linear shoreline, as measured at the mean high water line, bordering the Back Channel. This shoreline is comprised of salt marsh and riprap. A substantial portion of lots 6, 7, and 8 consists of salt marsh wetlands. No structures are proposed to be constructed on Lot 6. The salt marsh areas on lots 7 and 8 are traversed by existing pile-supported piers/access docks. To the extent they are replaced, such replacement will be by like-for- like structures, so there will be no new impact to the salt marsh wetlands on these lots. Most of Lot 9 consists of upland, some of which is authorized to be refilled under the Consolidated Authorization. A small wetland area consisting of approximately 18 square feet of salt marsh will be crossed by a new dock, but will not be filled or otherwise physically impacted. Dock A is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 7, and will consist of a 15.4-foot-long by 8-foot-wide extension added to the waterward end of an existing 150.8-foot-long by 8-foot-wide wooden dock, plus a 4-foot-long gangway attached to the waterward end of the extension, which will connect to a 100-foot-long by 9.5-foot wide concrete floating dock. Dock B is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 8, and will consist of a 40-foot-long by 10.3-foot-wide concrete floating dock with an 18-foot-long by 6-foot-wide platform, and a 4-foot-long gangway attached to an existing 125.2-foot-long by 5-foot-wide wooden dock. Dock C is proposed to be located on Lot 9, and will consist of a new inverted-L-shaped dock consisting of a 71-foot- long by four-foot wide pile-supported finger dock extending perpendicular to the shoreline into the Lease area, and a 26-foot long by 4-foot-wide dock running roughly parallel to the shoreline that will be constructed outside of the Lease area. Four wooden pilings also are proposed to be installed waterward of Lot 9. Three of these pilings will be located along the eastern boundary of the Lease, and the piling closest to the shoreline of Lot 9 will be located outside of the Lease area. All of these pilings will be set back 25 feet from Workboats' eastern riparian rights line. The newly constructed piling-supported dock additions to docks A and B, and new Dock C, will be elevated four feet above the marsh and will be constructed by hand-laying planks from the shoreline outward into the water, using the previously- laid planks as support while laying the new planks. Three three-pile mooring dolphins also are proposed as part of the Project. They will be installed within the Lease area, set back 38 feet from the southern boundary. No dredging is proposed or authorized for the Project. The Lease will be issued for a term of ten years and will preempt approximately 49,746 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands. The western boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet east of the upland property's western riparian rights line, and the eastern boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet west of the upland property's eastern riparian rights line. With the exception of a portion of Dock C and one wood piling that will be constructed on submerged land owned by Shafnacker,7/ all other structures proposed as part of the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease, and all vessel mooring and over-water operational activities authorized as part of the Project will occur within the Lease area. The Consolidated Authorization authorizes the placement of approximately 3,500 square feet of fill landward of the mean high water line and the jurisdictional wetland line, to replace historic fill eroded by hurricanes in 2017. Additionally, as a condition of the Consolidated Authorization, Workboats is required to restore approximately 250 square feet of salt marsh cord grass waterward of the mean high water line on Lot 9 as corrective action for unauthorized filling/destruction of salt marsh wetlands. As noted above, when constructed, the Project will operate as a tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/unloading facility. Workboats owns a fleet of approximately 40 vessels, comprised of barges, tow/push boats, and work boats, which are used to provide a range of marine services to third parties, including the transport/delivery of food and other supplies; artificial reef placement; marine demolition; and pile driving. These vessels will be moored at the docks, mooring dolphins, and mooring piles comprising the Project.8/ Of these 40 vessels, 28 are barges that range from ten to 130 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 feet deep. The remaining 12 vessels are boats that range from 14 to 46.2 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from one foot to 6.8 feet deep. The water depths within the Lease area range from one tenth of one foot immediately adjacent to the shoreline, to between 39.5 and 43.5 feet deep at mean low water at the southern boundary of the Lease. Only one or two of the smaller boats in Workboats' fleet have drafts that are shallow enough to enable them to moor on the shoreward sides of Docks A and B. In any event, all vessels must moor in areas within the Lease area having depths at mean low water sufficient to ensure that they do not come into contact with submerged resources. To that end, a condition is included in the Consolidated Authorization requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of a vessel with the motor in the "down" position and the top of submerged resources at mean low water. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that with the exception of the 32-foot-long Marlin Barge and the 10- foot-long Galligan barges, all other barges in Workboats' fleet will moor at the three-pile dolphins near the southern boundary of the Lease. Some barges will be anchored to the substrate by spuds, and the condition requiring 12 inches of clearance between the vessel bottom and the top of submerged resources would not apply to the spuds themselves. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that Workboats will only load vessels from Dock B, which is appurtenant to Lot 8, and that the only equipment that will be used to load vessels will be equipment small and light enough to traverse Dock B——specifically, a Takeuchi mini-excavator, small forklift, or similarly-sized equipment. These limitations regarding the loading of vessels within the Lease area are not currently included as conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the parties' stipulation and competent substantial evidence in the record, conditions should be added to the Consolidated Authorization expressly limiting the loading of vessels in the Lease area to occurring only on Dock B, and limiting the type of equipment used for vessel loading and unloading to forklifts, mini-excavators, or similar light equipment. Shafnacker testified that the only other work that may be performed within the Lease area would consist of certain minor maintenance activities on Workboats' vessels; these minor repair activities include non-routine paint touchups and handrail painting, minor cable and winch repairs, and minor steel-rod (non-lead) welding. DEP Review and Approval of the Project Workboats filed a Joint Application for Individual Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit ("Application") on or about June 15, 2018. The Application was determined to be complete. DEP staff reviewed the Application and determined that the Project, as proposed, met the applicable statutory standards and rule requirements for issuance of the Consolidated Authorization. DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent on or about July 20, 2018, proposing to issue the environmental resource permit and Lease for the Project. The Application, Consolidated Notice of Intent, and Consolidated Authorization were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. Compliance with Rule 62-330.301 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it must provide reasonable assurance9/ that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.301.10/ Water Quantity, Storage, Conveyance, and Flooding Impacts The entire Project, as proposed, will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line and will consist of mooring piles, piling-supported docks, and floating docks. These structures will not affect, impound, store, divert, or impede the amount or flow of surface water. The evidence demonstrated that the Project, if constructed and operated as proposed, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Impacts to Value of Functions Provided to Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and Habitat Two types of habitat exist at the Project site: salt marsh and submerged benthic habitat. The evidence established that the salt marsh at the Project site is healthy, high-quality, high-functioning salt marsh habitat. Among the functions the salt marsh provides are preservation and improvement of water quality by filtering runoff, serving as a nursery for fish species, preventing shoreline erosion, and forming the base of the estuarine food chain. The salt marsh, in combination with existing riprap at the edge of the salt marsh, forms a "living shoreline" at the Project site that helps protect the shoreline from erosion and scouring due to wave action. This living shoreline is not being removed or otherwise affected, and will remain in place at the Project site. The submerged benthic sediment at the Project site consists of high organic silts and a sand base. The evidence established that the benthic sediment provides habitat for infauna, such as polychaete worms; and for epifauna, such as shrimp, crabs, and mollusks. No submerged aquatic vegetation or oyster bars were found at the Project site. Docks A and B consist of extensions that will be added to two existing docks that previously were constructed through the salt marsh. These extensions will be constructed four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, using minimally- impactful construction techniques, discussed above, to help avoid and minimize construction impacts to the marsh. The floating components of docks A and B will not have any impact on the salt marsh habitat. Dock C will be constructed waterward of Lot 9, across a very small section of salt marsh grass. It also will be elevated four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, and will be constructed using the same minimally-impactful technique, to avoid and minimize impacts to the marsh. Because Dock C will have only de minimis impacts on the salt marsh, no mitigation has been required. The Consolidated Authorization contains conditions requiring Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibiting Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have only minimal impacts on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring maintenance of a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel, with the motor in the down position, and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Additionally, the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds is prohibited. These conditions will help protect benthic habitat at the Project site. The Florida Manatee is the only listed species that inhabits the Project site. Video evidence presented by the City showed manatees present at, and in the vicinity of, the Project site. The Project is located in an area designated, in the most recent Duval County Manatee Protection Plan (November 2017) ("MPP"), as "preferred" for boat facility siting. Boating facilities located in designated "preferred" areas generally do not have any limits on the number of slips at the facility. "Preferred" boat facility siting areas were designated in the MPP based on many factors, including manatee abundance, presence of manatee feeding habitat, proximity to boating destinations, manatee mortality in the area, existing boating slip numbers and locations, boating facility type and number, and existence of speed zones. To protect manatees in the Back Channel, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") has, by rule, established a slow speed, minimum wake zone extending 300 feet from the shorelines into the Back Channel. A slow speed, minimum wake zone means that a vessel must be fully off-plane and completely settled into the water, proceeding at a speed which is reasonable and prudent under the prevailing circumstances so as to avoid the creation of an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other persons using the waterway.11/ Fla. Admin. Code R. 68C-22.02(4). The existence and enforcement of this speed zone will help protect manatees in the Back Channel. Conditions also have been included in the Consolidated Authorization to help protect manatees from impacts from the Project. As previously discussed, for each vessel, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water, must be maintained. This condition will help ensure that manatees do not become trapped under or crushed by a vessel while moored in the Lease area. Additionally, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between moored vessels and between the docks/mooring piles and vessels, to help prevent trapping or crushing of manatees. The Consolidated Authorization also requires the Project to be constructed and operated in accordance with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work. These conditions include: instructing all personnel, including construction personnel, about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees, as well as about civil and criminal penalties imposed for harming, harassing, or killing manatees; operating all vessels associated with construction of the Project at "idle speed/no wake" at all times in the vicinity of the Project and where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom; the requirement that all in-water operations, including vessels, must shut down if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operation and cannot resume until the manatee either moves beyond the 50-foot radius of the operation or 30 minutes has elapsed and the manatee has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation; the installation of specified temporary signage; and the installation of specified permanent signage. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or listed species and their habitats. Water Quality Impacts As previously noted, the St. Johns River, including the Back Channel, is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300 apply to the Back Channel. The Back Channel portion of the St. Johns River has been identified as impaired for lead, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-303. The credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project, if constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization along with additional conditions discussed below, will not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Specifically, the Project will be required to install and maintain turbidity barriers during the construction phase to help ensure that any sediment disturbed during construction does not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Additionally, as discussed above, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of each vessel, with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. This will help prevent the suspension of sediments, and any constituents in those sediments, from being suspended in the water column and causing or contributing to water quality violations, as a result of the Project. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the storage or stockpiling of tools, equipment, materials, such as lumber, pilings, riprap, and debris within wetlands or other waters of the state; prohibits the discharge of construction debris into waters of the state; prohibits the overboard discharge of trash, human or animal waste and fuel at the docks; and requires all work to be done in periods of average or low water, so that impacts to submerged resources, including bottom sediment, can be avoided. Collectively, these conditions help provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project, including the mooring and operation of vessels in the Lease area, will not violate water quality standards. White testified that, generally, the water quality in, and in the vicinity, of marinas degrades over time due to the discharge of oils, greases, and other waste; and the suspension in the water column of sediments and toxins, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals in those sediments, as a result of propeller dredging. However, Irwin testified that because the Project site is located in a tidally-influenced area, with an approximate 3.5-foot tide range over multiple tide changes per day, the Project site will be adequately flushed such that there will not be an accumulation of pollutants that may violate water quality standards. Based on Irwin's persuasive testimony, it is determined that water quality violations will not occur due to an accumulation of pollutants at the Project site. To further ensure that the Project will not degrade water quality or violate water quality standards at the Project site, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to submit a facility management plan to address maintenance and unexpected spills of fuels and other pollutants. The facility management plan must include a spill response plan for fuel spills; a plan for maintenance of gray water collection systems and return systems, to the extent applicable; a plan addressing garbage collection and vessel cleaning systems to prevent disposal of waste in wetlands; and an education plan for all employees at the Project regarding fueling, sewage and gray water pump operations, waste management, and facility maintenance. Sewage pump-out facilities are not proposed as part of the Project. Shafnacker testified, and the Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section currently states, that domestic waste from boat heads will be handled through use of a waterless incinerating toilet (Incinolet or similar), and the remaining ash shall not be disposed of in waters of the state. However, it is noted that this requirement is not currently included as an enforceable condition. The undersigned finds that a specific condition expressly prohibiting any sewage pump-out at the docks or on vessels, requiring the use of an incinerator toilet, and prohibiting the discharged of ash waste should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate water quality standards due to the discharge of sewage into waters of the state. The Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section, states: This permit does not authorize the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; the discharge of waste into the water; liveaboards; fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations; repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into Waters of the State. Major repair, reconstruction, and/or other service must be performed at a facility approved for vessel haul-out and repair. This does not preclude the light maintenance allowed under Specific Condition 18 to be performed at the facility. This language, which expressly identifies numerous activities that are prohibited in connection with the operation of the Project, is not currently included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. The undersigned determines that in order to protect water quality at the Project site, this language must be included as a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization. As previously noted above, the Back Channel is impaired for lead. Both Irwin and Hallett testified that Workboats would not use lead paint or lead-containing welding equipment on the docks or vessels moored in the Lease area. To provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not constitute a source of lead that will contribute to the impaired status of the Back Channel, a specific condition prohibiting the use of lead-based paints and other sources of lead should be included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that, with the addition of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated as a result of construction or operation of the Project. Adverse Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Secondary impacts are impacts caused by other relevant activities very closely linked or causally related to the activity itself, rather than the direct impacts of the proposed activity itself.12/ The conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water quality. Additionally, the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, aquatic or wetland-dependent species, or listed species. As discussed above, the salt marsh habitat will not be disturbed during construction and operation of the Project, and the benthic habitat will be protected by the minimum 12-inch vessel to the top of submerged resource clearance requirement discussed above. These Project features and conditions will help ensure that there are no adverse impacts to wetland functions and to aquatic or wetland-dependent species, such as fish and benthic fauna. Additionally, the Project will be located within a slow speed, minimum wake zone, and Workboats will be required to operate all of its vessels in compliance with that standard within the 300-foot buffer along the shorelines of the Back Channel. This operational constraint, along with additional manatee protection conditions discussed above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to manatees. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that, with the addition of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not have adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Levels and Surface Water Flows As discussed above, the Project will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line, and will consist of piling-supported and floating docks and mooring piles that will not adversely impact the maintenance of minimum surface or ground water levels or surface water flows at the Project site. Impacts to Works of the District The Project is not proximate to any works of the district, as approved pursuant to section 373.086; accordingly, it will not cause adverse impacts to such works. Capable of Performing and Functioning as Designed The Project was designed by an engineer and will be installed by Shafnacker, who is an experienced marine contractor. The Consolidated Authorization requires that the Project must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and performance criteria. Within 30 days of completion of construction of the Project, Workboats must submit an as-built survey, signed and sealed by a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G17-7, depicting the boundaries of the Lease, and showing the size and dimensions of all existing overwater structures and activities within the Lease area. Additionally, the surveyor must provide a statement that all of the depicted structures and activities are located within the Lease area; or identify, and depict on an as-built survey, any structures or activities outside of the Lease area. These requirements will ensure that the Project performs and functions as designed. Financial, Legal, and Administrative Capability Rule 62-330.301(1)(j) requires an applicant for an environmental resource permit to provide reasonable assurance that the project will be conducted with a person having the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.13/ The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I (General and Environmental) ("Handbook"), section 1.5.1., which provides further guidance regarding compliance with the requirement in rule 62-330.301(1)(j), states that "[c]ompliance with this requirement must be demonstrated through subsections 62-330.060(3) and (4), the certification required in the Application Form 62-330.060(1), and section 12.0 of the Handbook." As part of the Application, Workboats submitted copies of warranty deeds for lots 6, 7, and 8, and Disclaimer No. 22146 for Lot 9. These documents establish that Shafnacker holds title to the uplands on lots 6 through 9 and to certain submerged lands waterward of Lot 9. Pursuant to Handbook section 4.2.3, these documents satisfy the "sufficient upland interest" requirement in rules 62.330.060(3) and 62- 330.301(1)(j). Rule 62-330.060(3) also requires the applicant and/or the applicant's agent to sign specific parts of the application. Here, Workboats, and Shafnacker, as Workboats' agent, signed the pertinent portions of the Application, as required by this rule. Rule 62-330.060(4) and pertinent provisions of section 12.0 of the Handbook——specifically, provisions in sections 12.1 and 12.2——require that once construction of the permitted activity is complete, it must be converted to the operational phase by submitting an as-built certification and request for conversion to operational phase. Here, the Consolidated Authorization for the Project requires submittal of this form, once construction is complete, as a condition for operation of the Project. These are the only rules and Handbook provisions regarding demonstration of financial, legal, and administrative capability that are pertinent to the Project. No other environmental resource permitting rules or Handbook provisions impose any other requirements regarding financial capability, and the City has not identified any case law or other statutes or rules imposing additional pertinent financial capability requirements. Thus, the evidence establishes that Workboats meets rule 62-330.301(1)(j) and all other pertinent rules and Handbook requirements, showing it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure the Project will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. The City did not present any evidence to show that Workboats lacks the financial, legal, and administrative capability to undertake the Project as permitted. Compliance with Rule 62-330.302 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it also must provide reasonable assurance that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.302,14/ which establishes additional standards for issuance of environmental resource permits for activities in surface waters or wetlands. Adverse Effects to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare, or Property of Others In determining whether a proposed activity in surface waters or wetlands would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others, the focus is on environmental hazards or injuries that may result from the proposed activity.15/ Thus, alleged threats to personal safety and enjoyment of neighboring property resulting from alleged unlawful activities on the upland areas of lots 6, 7, and 916/—— which are not part of the Project——are not appropriately considered as part of the public interest determination under rule 62-330.302. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions aimed at ensuring that water quality is not degraded and water quality standards are not violated due to the Project. These conditions, along with conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, provide reasonable assurance that the public health, safety and welfare, and property of others will not be adversely affected as a result of water quality degradation or violations. The Project, as designed and approved, will have 25-foot setbacks from the eastern and western riparian rights lines for lots 6 through 9. These setbacks will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not interfere with the adjoining properties' riparian rights. The City presented the testimony of O'Connor, who opined that some of Workboats' vessels, operated at full throttle, were capable of generating a wake as high as three feet. O'Connor testified that a wake of this height could damage docks along the shoreline of the Back Channel, cause shoreline erosion, and create a safety hazard for recreational boaters, kayakers, and others engaged in in-water recreational activities. As discussed above, the Back Channel is approximately 1,300 feet wide at the Project site. Per the location map provided as part of the specific purpose survey, the portion of the Back Channel east of the Project site is at least this wide for its entire length. Shafnacker testified, credibly, that his vessels typically operate closer to the Blount Island shoreline than the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so are approximately 800 feet away from the northern shoreline where the residential docks and access points for boaters, kayakers, and other recreational uses are located. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that Workboats' boats and barges would be operated at speeds such that the highest wake that any of his vessels would generate is two feet. Based on the foregoing, and with the inclusion in the Consolidated Authorization of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others. Adverse Effects to Conservation of Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and their Habitats As previously discussed, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibits Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have minimal impact on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a condition prohibiting the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds. This, along with the condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between vessel bottom and submerged resources, will help protect the benthic habitat at the Project site. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect manatees from impacts due to the Project. Specifically, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between docks or mooring piles and vessels, and between vessels, and a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. The Project also must be constructed and operated in accordance with the FWC's Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, which imposes construction and operational requirements to protect manatees for the life of the Project. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened species and their habitats. Adverse Effects to Navigation, Flow of Water, or Shoaling The Back Channel is navigable, and is over 1,300 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be located. It is used by a mix of recreational vessels and commercial and industrial vessels, although, as noted above, the low-clearance bridges on the western end of Blount Island effectively limit the commercial and industrial traffic to smaller-sized vessels. As depicted on the specific purpose survey submitted as part of the Application, the southern boundary of the Lease extends waterward approximately 196 feet from the shoreline at the eastern boundary of the Lease, and approximately 174 feet from the shoreline at the western boundary of the Lease. Thus, at its most waterward point, the preempted area of the Lease will extend waterward approximately 14 percent of the width of the Back Channel.17/ The specific purpose survey shows docks A and C extending waterward approximately 60 feet from the shoreline, and shows Dock B extending waterward approximately 45 feet from the shoreline.18/ The three three-pile dolphins, which will be used to moor the largest barges, will be set back approximately 38 feet from the southern boundary of the Lease. Shafnacker testified that barges moored at the three-pile mooring dolphins will be tied between the dolphins, by ropes at their bows and sterns, to ensure that they do not drift out of the Lease area and create a navigational hazard. The Consolidated Authorization contains a condition requiring the waterward ends of the docks and the mooring dolphins to be marked by reflectors so as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. However, at the hearing, Shafnacker testified that he intended to mark the dolphins and barges with solar battery-powered lights so that they would be more visible at night than if only reflectors are used. Based on this testimony, it is recommended that Specific Condition No. 13 in the Consolidated Authorization be modified to require the barges and mooring dolphins to be marked by lights, as well as reflectors, to make them more visible from the water. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Project, as proposed, will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel. Specifically, the Lease will not extend a significant distance out into the Back Channel; approximately 86 percent of the width of the Back Channel at the Project site remains open for navigation by the public. Additionally, the docks will be located relatively close to the shoreline, well within the Lease preempted area, and will be marked so that they are visible from the water. The mooring dolphins also will be set back a substantial distance from the Lease boundary and will be marked so as to be visible from the water. The evidence shows that the Project will not have any adverse effects on the flow of water. As discussed above, the Project will not impede, impound, or otherwise affect the flow of water. The evidence also shows that the Project will not cause harmful shoaling or erosion. No dredging or placement of dredged spoil is proposed or authorized as part of the project, and the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to use silt fencing and other specified best management practices to stabilize the sediment and prevent erosion and shoaling during construction of the Project. For these reasons, it is determined that the Project will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel, will not adversely affect the flow of water, and will not result in harmful shoaling or erosion. Adverse Effects to Fishing, Recreational Values, or Marine Productivity The Back Channel is a meander of the St. Johns River that no longer is used as the main navigational channel for the river. Thus, it is relatively calm and is extensively used for boating, kayaking, swimming, fishing, jet skiing, and other in- water recreational activities. The evidence establishes that the Project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity. The salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of the Project, which serves as the base of the estuarine food chain and as a nursery and refuge for small fish, will not be disturbed during construction of the Project. As such, the Project will not adversely affect fish habitat or marine productivity. Additionally, because the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease and set back 25 feet from the riparian lines for the adjoining properties, it will not physically interfere with or displace fishing activities from those properties, or from any other property in the vicinity. The Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect water quality during construction and operation of the Project. These conditions, and the additional conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, will protect water quality, and therefore help protect fish habitat and marine productivity. The credible evidence establishes that vessel operation associated with the Project will not adversely affect boating, kayaking, fishing, or other recreational activities in the vicinity. As discussed above, the Project is located in a slow speed, minimum wake zone that extends 300 feet from the shoreline into the Back Channel, and all vessels traversing into and out of the Lease area must operate at this speed until they are beyond 300 feet from the shorelines. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that once out of the 300-foot slow speed, minimum wake zone, the vessels will operate at speeds such that they will generate a wake of two feet, at most. The evidence showed that wakes of this height are not anticipated to adversely affect recreational activities in the Back Channel. Temporary or Permanent Activity The Project will be permanent. However, the evidence establishes that there are numerous permanent docking facilities along the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so the Project is not unique in that regard. Adverse Impacts to Significant Historical or Archaeological Resources The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any adverse impacts to such resources. As a precaution, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring Workboats to immediately cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance and to contact DHR if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, project points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlements are encountered at any time within the Project site. Accordingly, it is determined that the Project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The salt marsh wetlands in the vicinity of the Project are healthy, high-functioning, and part of a "living shoreline" that will not be disturbed by construction or operation of the Project. Although Dock C will be constructed across a very small patch of salt marsh, it will be elevated to reduce shading and will be constructed using minimally-impactful construction techniques. Any impacts to the salt marsh from the Project will be de minimis. The Project is also not anticipated to adversely affect the condition and relative value of the benthic habitat on the Project site. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization imposes a minimum 12-inch clearance from vessel bottom to top of submerged resources requirement, which will help prevent physical impact to, and propeller dredging of, the benthic habitat at the Project site. Conditions in the Consolidated Authorization, as well as the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, also will help protect the current condition and relative value of the salt marsh and benthic habitat on the Project site. Unacceptable Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters With the conditions currently contained in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, the Project is not anticipated to have adverse water quality impacts. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, protected species, and their habitat. Therefore, with the inclusion of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Project will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts, in violation of rule 62- 330.302(1)(b). Past Violations of Water and Wetlands Statutes and Rules The City presented evidence consisting of videos and photographs taken from the Wood residence immediately east of Lot 9. These videos and photographs show a variety of activities that are potentially damaging to surface waters and wetlands, including dumping sediment into surface waters from a moored vessel; earthmoving; moving floating docks onto, and off of, the shoreline using heavy equipment; operating heavy equipment in wetlands and surface waters along the shoreline; and mooring boats in extremely shallow water. Wood testified, credibly, that he contacted DEP numerous times, and that DEP occasionally visited Shafnacker's property——typically days after Wood had contacted the agency. Upon inspecting the Workboats site, DEP determined that barges or other equipment or materials had been dragged onto the shoreline without proper authorization, and DEP issued a compliance assistance offer letter to address this noncompliance. DEP ultimately determined that, rather than taking enforcement action for this noncompliance, a salt marsh restoration corrective action requirement should be included in the Consolidated Authorization. The corrective action conditions require Workboats to submit a salt marsh restoration plan and impose restoration plan completion timeframes, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Given Workboats' noncompliance history, the undersigned determines that in order to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate environmental resource permitting statutes and rules, the conditions addressed above in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, must be included as enforceable conditions in the Consolidated Authorization. Compliance with Chapter 18-21 for Issuance of the Lease For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the Lease, it must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it will meet the applicable requirements and standards codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 for issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands lease. Water Dependent Activities Rule 18-21.004(1)(g) requires activities on sovereignty submerged lands to be limited to those that are water dependent. A "water dependent activity" is one that can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.003(71). The Project's proposed docks, mooring piles, mooring dolphins, and vessel mooring operations are water dependent activities. The Project's primary purpose is the water dependent activity of mooring vessels and the ancillary activity of loading vessels with supplies as part of Workboats' operation. Case law interpreting Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 holds that because the primary purpose of docks and other mooring structures is to moor vessels, they are "water dependent" activities for purposes of rule 18-21.004(1)(g).19/ As discussed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, a condition should be included in the environmental resource permit and Lease specifically prohibiting any major repair, reconstruction, or maintenance activities within the Lease area, in order to ensure that only water dependent activities are conducted within the Lease area. Resource Management Requirements Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) requires sovereignty submerged lands to be managed primarily for the maintenance of natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Additionally, the rule authorizes compatible secondary uses that will not detract from or interfere with these primary purposes. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the Project, as proposed and conditioned in the Consolidated Authorization, will not adversely affect salt marsh or benthic habitat, will not degrade water quality or cause or contribute to water quality violations, and will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, listed species, and marine productivity. Accordingly, the Project will not detract from, or interfere, with fish and wildlife propagation. The evidence also establishes that the Project will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses. As discussed above, the Back Channel is wide enough to accommodate vessels traveling to and from the Project site without detracting from or interfering with recreational activities conducted in the Back Channel. Additionally, vessels traveling to and from the Project site must be operated in accordance with the slow speed, minimum wake zone within the 300-foot shoreline buffer, and will be operated at speeds that will generate a maximum two-foot wake outside of the shoreline buffer. The evidence shows that these speeds will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses in the Back Channel. The Project also has been designed, and will be operated, to minimize or eliminate wetland vegetation impacts and impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and cultural resources. Specifically, as discussed above, impacts to the salt marsh habitat have been minimized through the use of minimally- impactful construction techniques and elevating docks four feet above the marsh to reduce shading of the marsh grasses. Additionally, the 12-inch minimum vessel/submerged resource clearance condition will reduce impacts to the benthic habitat in the Lease area. As discussed above, DHR did not provide comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any impacts to such resources. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition establishing protocol for Workboats to follow if any specified artifacts are encountered at any time within the Project site. Rule 18-21.004(7)(e) requires that construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity not adversely affect any species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in FWC rules. As discussed above, the Florida Manatee is the only listed species determined to be present the Project site. The Project site is located within an established slow speed, minimum wake zone, and vessels entering and leaving the Project site must comply with this speed limitation within the 300-foot shoreline buffer area. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization includes several conditions designed to reduce and minimize potential impacts to manatees that may enter the Lease area. Collectively, these requirements and conditions will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect manatees. Riparian Rights As part of the Application, Workboats submitted deeds and Disclaimer No. 22146, demonstrating that Shafnacker holds title to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. These documents constitute "satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest," as that term is defined in rule 18.21.003(60). Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Project is proposed to be constructed in the riparian area appurtenant to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, and all structures that are part of the Project will be set back at least 25 feet from the eastern and western riparian lines for the upland property. No evidence was presented showing that the construction or operation of the Project would unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners, in violation of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). It is determined that the Project will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners, so meets the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 102 through 107, above, it is determined that the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard, in violation of rule 18- 21.004(7)(g). However, the inclusion of a condition requiring lighting of the mooring dolphins, discussed in paragraph 106, is recommended to ensure the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard. Lease Fees As part of the Application, Workboats submitted a financial affidavit attesting to its ability to pay the required fees for the Lease, imposed pursuant to rules 18-21.008 and 18-21.011. Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004 establishes the sovereignty submerged lands management policies, standards, and criteria to be used in determining whether to approve activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The term "public interest" is defined to mean "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of the proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(51). To meet the "not contrary to the public interest" standard in rule 18-21.004(1)(a), it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998). Here, the City asserts that the Lease is contrary to the public interest because it will cause adverse impacts to benthic and salt marsh habitat; discharge pollutants into the waters of the Back Channel; harm manatees; pose a navigational hazard; and detract from, and interfere with, recreational activities in the Back Channel. However, as discussed above, the evidence shows that the Project has been designed specifically to minimize many of these impacts, and the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions specifically aimed at preventing many of these alleged impacts. As discussed above, other conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, 70, 106, and 138, also should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to ensure that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to habitat resources, water quality, manatees, and navigation. Case law interpreting the public interest test in rule in 18-21.004(1)(a) applicable to proprietary approvals holds that when proposed structures or activities meet the applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21, those structures or activities are presumed to be not contrary to the public interest. See Spinrad v. Guerro and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-2254 (Fla. DOAH July 25, 2014), modified in part, Case No. 13-0858 (Fla. DEP Sept. 8, 2014); Haskett v. Rosati and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0465 (Fla. DOAH July 31, 2013), modified in part, Case No. 13-0040 (Fla. DEP Oct. 29, 2013). Here, Workboats has demonstrated that the Project meets all applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21; thus, the Project is presumed to be not contrary to the public interest under rule 18-21.004(1)(a).20/ The City did not present persuasive evidence showing that, on balance, the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the Project exceed the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits accruing to the public.21/ Accordingly, it is determined that the Project meets the public interest test in rule 18- 21.004(1)(a). Entitlement to Environmental Resource Permit Workboats met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit by entering into evidence the Application, Notice of Intent, Consolidated Authorization, and supporting information. Workboats also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet its burden to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the environmental resource permit. The burden then shifted to the City to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Project does not comply with sections 373.413 and 373.414 and applicable environmental resource permitting rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that the City did not meet its burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined that, with the inclusion of conditions in the Consolidated Authorization addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, and 106, above, Workboats meets all applicable requirements for issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project. Entitlement to Lease As discussed above, Workboats bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Workboats met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the Lease for the Project. The City's Standing As previously noted, the City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. On or about July 26, 2018, the Council of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, adopted Resolution 2018-499-A, finding that issuance of the environmental resource permit and Lease affects the substantial interests of a significant number of residents in Duval County. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Petition with DEP on August 17, 2018, alleging that the Project will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft amended Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as modified to include the conditions addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, 106, and 137, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact 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 issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The proposed project is a six-lane, combination low and high level bridge crossing Mill Cove and the St. John's River in Duval County, Florida. The project entails construction of approximately 6,000 feet of low level trestle-type bridge structure and approach spans beginning on the south side of Mill Cove and extending across the Cove to the northern edge of Quarantine Island, an artificial spoil island; 3,000 feet of high level bridge crossing the main channel of the St. John's River; and northern approach spans touching down on Dame Point on the northern shore of the St. John's River. In order to construct the proposed project, JTA is required to obtain a water quality permit and certification from DER. JTA filed its application with DER, accompanied by supporting data, including several studies performed by professional consultants. After review of the application, DHR filed notice of its intent to issue the requested water quality permit and certification, and Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, to oppose the issuance of the permit and certification. Petitioners are various groups and individuals concerned about water quality in the St. John's River and the Jacksonville area. Petitioners' standing to seek relief in this proceeding was stipulated by all parties. Construction of the project will result in: filling of approximately .07 acres of wetlands to construct the south abutment on the shore of Mill Cove; dredging of approximately 185,000 cubic yards of material from Mill Cove to create a 4,400 foot long, 190 foot wide barge access channel, with a five foot navigation control depth parallel to the low level portion of the project; temporary filling of approximately .3 acres of wetlands above mean high water on the south shore of Quarantine Island to provide construction access to the island, which area is to be restored upon completion of construction; construction of a diked upland spoil containment site approximately 31 acres in size above mean high water on Quarantine Island to retain all dredge spoil associated with the project; construction of a temporary dock at the northern end of Quarantine Island for access and staging purposes, which is to be removed on project completion; and filling of approximately 16,000 cubic feet of material waterward of mean high water for rip-rap protection around main piers in the St. John's River. Dredged materials will be removed by hydraulic dredges. The St. John's River and its tributaries have been designated Class III waters by DER in the project area. The project involves dredging below mean high water and filling above mean high water, and is a dredge-and-fill project for purposes of Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and is regulated by DER. The project is an element in a proposed eastern bypass around the City of Jacksonville. It is expected that, as a result of the project, existing area industry will receive more efficient transportation service, commuter trip miles from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville will be reduced, transportation routes to education facilities will be improved, and tourist traffic will be routed around downtown Jacksonville, reducing miles traveled to nearby beach resorts and thereby relieving downtown congestion. The benefits to costs ratio of the project appears positive and beneficial to Duval County and Jacksonville, in that for every dollar spent to construct the project, $2.80 could be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Testimony clearly established that the state waters in the project area are currently severely degraded and are not likely to meet Class III water quality standards. Violations of Class III standards for dissolved oxygen and some heavy metals, such as mercury, presently exist as background conditions in the St. John's River and Mill Cove. Further, a water quality analysis performed by DER in the project area indicates high background concentrations of heavy metals and PCB's in both the water column and sediments in the project area. When the pro posed project is analyzed within the context of these existing background water quality conditions, it appears highly unlikely that any impact from the project will further degrade existing conditions. The project as currently designed includes plans for total containment of spoil material resulting from dredging activity on the upland portions of Quarantine Island. There will be no direct discharge of dredge $materials from this containment area into the receiving waters of the state. JTA performed a water and sediment analysis of the project area, the purpose of which was to determine the existence and concentrations of specific pollutants that could adversely impact Class III waters if reintroduced into the aquatic system. JTA employed a consultant whose analytical program was designed in consultation with DER and complied with all standard testing procedures required by Rule 17-3.03, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis identified three primary-project activities where control of toxic and deleterious materials was critical: turbidity control; upland spoil containment; and direct discharge of spoil water to state waters. Sediments in the Mill Cove area are extremely fine and may be resuspended in the water column in quantities that could violate state water quality standards if dredging is done improperly. It appears from the evidence that any turbidity problem can be avoided by employing silt curtains and hydraulic dredging during channel excavation. Silt curtains should adequately retain turbidity below levels which would violate state water quality standards, in view of the fact that the JTA study hypothesized a "worst-case" condition for projecting turbidity and pollutant concentration by assuming no upland spoil containment, silt curtains or reasonable mixing zone. Although use of silt curtains and hydraulic dredging cannot absolutely guarantee zero-discharge of suspended sediments from the dredging area, the proposed system of turbidity control is adequate to provide reasonable assurance of non-violation of state water quality standards. Due to the existing toxic background conditions in Mill Cove, DER imposed a permit condition requiring spoil from dredging activities to be completely contained in an upland landfill-type site, with no overflow that could allow effluent to return to waters of the state. The upland dike system proposed in the project application is designed to retain all spoil material and water without direct discharge into state waters. Testimony established that the proposed dike system is designed to hold far more spoil material than the proposed project will generate. Although the dike system is to be constructed from dredged material previously deposited on Quarantine Island, it appears from the testimony that these materials were dredged from the main channel of the St. John's River and are cleaner and sandier in character than sediments in the Mill Cove area. The dike system, in conjunction with natural percolation and evaporation, is adequately designed to retain dredge spoil on the upland portion of Quarantine Island, and can reasonably be expected not to release toxic and deleterious substances into receiving waters of the state. It is also significant that a condition of the requested permit requires project water quality monitoring to afford continuing assurance that the project will not violate standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. These standards and the conditions required to achieve them have been included in DER's letter of intent to issue the permit for this project. It is specifically concluded from the evidence that project dredging will not release toxic and deleterious substances into Class III waters in violation of state water quality standards, and that project dredging in Mill Cove incorporates reasonable safeguards for spoil disposal and turbidity control so as to assure non-violation of state water quality standards. JTA plans to use a direct discharge method to dispose of storm water from the bridge. Storm water will fall through 4-inch screened holes called "scuppers" placed at regular intervals along the bridge surface directly into either Mill Cove or the St. John's River. JTA was required to provide in its application reasonable assurance that storm water runoff from the Project would not exceed applicable state standards for turbidity, BOD, dissolved solids, zinc, polychlorinated biphenols, lead1 iron, oils or grease, mercury, cadmium and coliform. To this end, JTA submitted a study entitled Effect of Rainfall Runoff from Proposed Dame Point Bridge on Water Quality of St. John's River. This study analyzed the chemical composition of storm water runoff from an existing bridge, comparable in both size and design, to the proposed project, which crosses the St. John's River south of the City of Jacksonville. This study adequately established that storm water runoff into the St. John's River across the length of the proposed bridge will not degrade the water quality of the St. John's River below current water quality standards. All but three of the parameters tested in the study were within standards contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The remaining three pollutants were either not automobile-related, or would not violate applicable water quality standards after a reasonable opportunity" for mixing with receiving waters. One of these pollutants, mercury, is not automobile-related, and the concentration of mercury discovered in bridge runoff test samples was essentially the same as that measured in rainfall samples. The sampling for mercury was performed using the ultrasensitive "atomic absorption" method, which is capable of measuring tenths of a part per billion of mercury. Another method, the "Dithizone" method, is a technique recognized as effective by DER, and would have, if utilized, yielded a result within the "none detectable" standard contained in Rule 17-3.05(2) , Florida Administrative Code. As to the remaining two pollutants, coliform and lead, testimony established that a dilution rate of 400 to 1, after mixing with receiving waters, would not result in violation of applicable Class III water standards. Testimony also clearly established that water circulation in the project area would result in the requisite dilution ratio of approximately 400 to 1. The storm water runoff study was performed on a bridge similar in all important characteristics to the proposed project, and therefore validates the scientific methodology utilized to determine the expected impact of runoff from the proposed project on water quality in the St. John's River. The applicant has provided in its permit application the best practicable treatment available to protect state waters in the design of both the low and high level portions of the proposed bridge. Extensive research and analysis of design alternatives for both the low and high level portions of the bridge were undertaken by JTA and its consultants prior to selecting the proposed design for the bridge. JTA prepared and submitted to DER, as part of the application process, a document entitled Summary of Construction Techniques in Mill Cove, Dame Point Expressway. This document analyzed and summarized the available construction and design alternatives for the low level trestle portions of the project. The analysis included consideration of overhead construction, construction from a temporary wooden structure parallel to the project, and construction from barges using a shallow channel parallel to the project. The design chosen will cost more than one million dollars less than the next alternative, and will cut construction time by two years over the next alternative design. Given the demonstrated need for the proposed project, the already degraded water quality in the project area, the safeguards for water quality contained-in the project design, and the savings to be realized in both cost and time of construction, the design presently contained in the application is the best practicable. Both Petitioners and JTA have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 7 have also been substantially adopted. To the extent that proposed findings of fact submitted by either Petitioners or JTA are not adopted in the Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The applicant currently operates a 58 slip marina Village at the proposed site, which was constructed under a modified permit from the Department in 1980 by Sunset Realty. Subsequent to that construction, the Petitioner commenced its Marina Village project on uplands adjacent to the existing dock facility and entered into a lease with Sunset Realty to operate the present marina as part of its "Boca Grande Club." The operative portion of the existing marina, that is, where boats are moored and operate, is in water eight feet or greater in depth. The marina provides fuel service at a separate fuel dock as well as electric and telephone service at the individual slips, thus permitting boats using the slips to hook up to on- shore electrical and telephone service. Sewage pump-out equipment is available at the fuel dock and a portable sewage pumping facility is available to be moved to each slip as necessary. Boca Grande Club employs a full time dock master who lives aboard a boat at the existing facility. The facility presently generally serves larger craft, that is, boats generally larger than 25 feet in length and serves some vessels in excess of 60 feet in length. The marina village portion of Boca Grande Club is a condominium, residential development, which is nearly completed and will consist of 48 residential units. A second portion of the Boca Grande Club is located on the Gulf of Mexico some 2,000 feet away from the marina village. The entire project employs slightly more than 100 people. The Petitioner contends that the existing marina of 58 slips is not sufficient to provide adequate dock space for the residents of the development, as well as members of Boca Grande Club. It also contends that the existing dock elevations are such as to make access from small boats to the dock difficult. The number of residents or club members requiring boat slips was not established, nor was it shown that efforts to modify existing dock elevations have been attempted unsuccessfully. In any event, the Petitioner applied to the Department on February 15, 1985, to construct the approximate 3450 square feet of additional dock facility. This would include a "T" shaped structure with an access ramp or walkway extending approximately 189 feet toward the existing channel from the shore. The waterward "T" portion will be 237 feet ~n length. Additionally,. an "L" shaped structure with two sections, each approximately 75 feet in length, would be constructed which would accommodate six boat slips. The "T" shaped dock will accommodate 19 boat slips at its waterward end. The docks proposed will contain ten 3' X 15' finger piers with regard to the "T" shaped dock and two 3' X 15' finger piers attached to the "L" shaped dock. The applicant would install 42 mooring pilings in the bottom of Gasparilla Sound for the mooring of boats using the docks. Thus, the applicant proposes the addition of approximately 25 boat slips with the proposed docks, all of which will be located within Gasparilla Sound, in the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This is a Class II water body pursuant to Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and has also been designated an outstanding Florida water, pursuant to Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The docking facility will be located in an area vegetated by sea grass, including turtle grass and associated algae. The access ramp for the "T" dock would be through a mangrove fringe including red, white and black mangroves. The Department's appraisal recommended denial of the application unless certain modifications to the "T" shaped dock are accomplished, including omitting the "T" shaped docking structure or relocating it to an area without grass beds; that the pilings should be driven into place rather than placed in augured holes; that turbidity screens should be installed and staked around the proposed piling site and that no boats over 25 feet in length or equipped with heads or toilets should be allowed to moor at the docking facility, nor should boats be permitted with people living aboard them. On September 5, 1985, the Respondent issued its Intent to Deny indicating that the project was expected to violate water quality standards and that the construction of the dock and the presence of the moored boats attendant to use of the dock would lower existing water quality in terms of turbidity, biological integrity, bacteriological quality, especially as to fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria and based upon the DER's position that the "T" shaped dock would not clearly be in the public interest in several respects. The Department has no objection and proposes to issue a permit for construction of the smaller, "L" shaped dock. In response to the Intent to Deny, the Petitioner resurveyed the seagrasses in the area and located a site where the water depths sloped to deeper water and seagrasses were sparser. It modified its application, moving the waterward extension of the dock over the deeper water in the less dense seagrasses, but could not move the dock to a location to avoid seagrass since to do so would not allow maneuvering room for larger boats utilizing the existing dock. The applicant agreed to the other suggestions of modification by the Respondent. Thus, the applicant subsequently modified the application to include "bow-in" mooring of boats so as to place boat propellors over the deepest possible waters at the mooring site, as well as raising the central portion of the access ramp leading waterward from the shore, to provide for greater light penetration and less shading of seagrasses, as well as narrowing the dock to five feet in width where it passes through the mangrove fringe, so as to limit alteration of the mangroves at the site to only three trees. The Department continues to take the position that the permit should be denied, however, on the basis that the construction of the dock and the presence of the boats attendant to the dock will lower existing water quality in terms of the above particulars and based upon the DER's evaluation that the "T" shaped dock will not clearly be in the public interest. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY The Petitioner tendered C. W. Sheffield, professional engineer, and Dr. Martin Roessler as experts in the field of water quality and they were accepted without objection. The respondent tendered the expert testimony of Mr. Doug Frye and William Porter, respectively a dredge and fill specialist and supervisor and an environmental specialist with the Shellfish Monitoring Program for the Department of Natural Resources, who were accepted as expert witnesses in the areas of water quality and, with regard to Mr. Porter, the impacts of water quality on shellfish. It was thus established that the ambient water quality in the cove which contains the present marina and where the proposed docking facilities would be is generally good. The water meets all relevant State regulatory standards with the exception of fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters. In that regard, repetitive samples have shown violations of the fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters on a number of occasions. The data relied upon concerning fecal coliform organism levels at the project site was collected and analyzed over approximately a one year period during which time the samples were shown to contain fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria in violative concentrations a number of times. Marinas are known discharge sources for fecal coliform organisms. This is especially true of moored boats in marinas which often have toilets or heads which are illegally flushed into the State waters within the marina. The presence of moored boats with heads are known discharge sources of fecal coliform organisms and the boats utilizing the present marina and the proposed project do, and likely will, have toilets on board, which can be improperly discharged into the waters of the marina. This marina has been established to be a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms in violation of the relevant standard for Class II waters of the State. There presently exists relatively high levels of fecal coliform organisms ranging up to 50 organisms per 100 milliliters of water in the area of the existing marina. This level of concentration exceeds the regulatory standard for fecal coliform bacteria in the Class II water quality rules. Although Mr. Porter discussed the possibility that high levels of coliform bacteria could be caused by birds or animals depositing fecal material in the water, he established that the likely source of elevated levels of this bacteria was improper operation of heads aboard boats, as pointed out by the fact that samples taken in other areas of the Gasparilla Sound away from marina sites do not exhibit the high coliform levels found on repeated occasions at the subject site. Thus, it has been established that the ambient water quality is within State standards for all parameters with the exception of fecal and total coliform bacteria for Class II waters. The Petitioner contends that Class III water standards are appropriately applied herein inasmuch as the Department placed the Class III standards rather than the Class II standards at issue in its Intent to Deny, albeit mistakenly. There is no question, however, that there are Class II waters of the State involved at this site and the subject area is within the aquatic preserve and outstanding Florida waters. The Petitioner is charged with knowledge of this inasmuch as the aquatic preserve boundaries are delimited in the Department's above-cited, published rule. In preparing and processing its application and electing to proceed with this project, the Petitioner is charged with knowledge that these are Class II waters and that the water quality criteria and considerations applicable to Class II outstanding Florida waters are the appropriate parameters with which it must comply. In any event, this is a de novo proceeding and the Department's initial position with regard to this application is not binding in favor of or to the prejudice of any party to the Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes proceeding. IMPACT ON BENTHIC COMMUNITY ·9. There is a moderate stand of seagrass at the proposed site of the "T" portion of the dock or waterward end of the dock, with dense seagrass beds existing toward the shore, over which the narrower walkway portion of the dock will traverse. Seagrass beds are an especially productive marine community which contribute greatly to the biological diversity in surrounding waters because of their important function in the marine food chain. That function is involved with the seagrasses production of detrital matter consisting of seeds and vegetative material which marine organisms feed upon and upon which organisms larger fish, including commercial and sport fish species, feed upon. Potential adverse impacts caused by a project of this type on the Benthic Community at the project site and especially the seagrass beds involve the potential shading of seagrasses caused by the location of the dock over them, as well as the mooring of boats over them which shading retards or eliminates photosynthesis, which ultimately can kill the seagrass and thus reduce marine productivity in the area. The concentration of boats at such a mooring site as the end of this "T" dock will concentrate the effects of prop scouring, washing and prop dredging, which will have a destructive effect on seagrasses as well as the settling out of sediment from propellor wash or disturbance of the bottom on the seagrasses which can ultimately smother them as well as other marine life forms. In discussing these considerations, it should be pointed out that the "T" portion of the dock would be oriented in a general north-south direction which causes the shadow of the dock to move rapidly as the sun passes overhead in a general east to west direction. This would tend to minimize the effect of shading on the seagrass of the dock itself, particularly with regard to the approach ramp portion of the dock which is relatively narrow. That portion of the dock extending toward the shore runs in an east to west direction and would not exhibit the same rapidly moving shadow, but the central portion of the approach walkway has been elevated to such an extent that light reaching under the dock from both sides will be sufficient to allow photosynthesis of the seagrasses under the dock, although not for as long a period of the day nor at the same rate as would be the case if the dock were not present. The Petitioner asserts that its voluntary relocation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock from an area of dense sea grass to a moderately populated sea grass bed plus the proposed bow-in mooring of boats so as to alleviate propellor damage to the seagrass, together with its view concerning the prevailing water depth at the end of the dock, will serve to prevent damage to the seagrass at the end of the "T" dock where the boats will be moored. It has been shown, however, that the mooring of boats whether bow-in or otherwise will still create a significant amount of shading of the bottom which, together with the shading caused by the "T" dock as well as the associated finger piers will retard or prevent photosynthesis to some extent, especially where boats are moored for days at a time without moving. This will significantly reduce the marine productivity attributable to the seagrass by retarding its natural function or, in some cases, killing it with the resultant loss of the detrital production as well as carbon production, the former being crucial to the proper functioning of the marine food chain in the area. If the seagrass is damaged or extinguished by the shading effect, prop scouring and washing, and/or settlement of turbidity on the seagrass, or a combination of these factors, not only will its productivity be lost, but the biological diversity of marine life in the area will be reduced as it relates to those vertebrate and invertebrate marine animals which depend on seagrass as a food source either directly or indirectly. Dr. Roessler, for the Petitioner, opined that the attached biological communities or "fouling" organisms such as barnacles which would form on the dock pilings, if they were installed, would provide habitat for marine life and invertebrates and thus enhance the biological diversity of the area. These fouling organisms which attach to pilings, however, represent a very narrow portion of the potential marine biological diversity of life forms in an area such as this. Their advent on the pilings, should the pilings be installed, would not mitigate for the loss of important marine habitat and resultant species diversity that elimination of this portion of the seagrass beds would pose. Thus, reasonable assurances have not been established that significant adverse impact to the Benthic Community in the form of damage or elimination of the seagrass beds and their dependent biota will not occur due to shading and propellor scouring, dredging and washing occasioned by the installation of the docking facility. Respondent's expert witnesses Sheftal, Barth, and Dentzau uniformly expressed a concern for propellor scarring, dredging and prop washing of the seagrass beds caused by an improper operation of boats in the project area where water is too shallow over the grass beds to protect them from the resultant propellor damage. In this regard, the Petitioner's own experiments with actual boats indicated that approximately one to 1 1/2 feet of water will remain between the bottom of the sound and the boat propellors at the end of the "T" dock for the general type and size of boats which will use the dock, even assuming that the boats are moored bow inward, thus taking maximum advantage of the deepest water possible under the propellors when a boat engine is started. Respondent's witness Dentzau performed a test with a 21 foot boat with an approximately 100 horsepower outboard engine running it in both forward and reverse at the "T" end of the dock. He was able to readily generate a "plume" of turbidity consisting of sand and other bottom material suspended in the water by the scouring action of the propellor. Although it was demonstrated for water quality parameter considerations that this turbidity plume did not violate the water quality standards for turbidity, it obviously shows that over time the turbidity suspended by boat propellors will settle on the seagrasses and other bottom dwelling biota to their detriment and, more immediately important, demonstrates that prop washing and scouring will occur by boats even if moored bow-in at the presently proposed site of the "T" shaped portion of the dock. The Petitioner proposes by the configuration of its "L" shaped dock in conjunction with the IT" shaped dock, as well as with buoy lines, to keep boat traffic away from the dense grass beds surrounding the proposed dock site and over which the walkway will extend. The Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent grass beds. It has not been demonstrated, however, what steps can be taken to effectively prevent boats from approaching the side of the proposed dock around the ends of the buoy lines and over the dense grass beds toward prohibitively shallow water where prop scouring and scarring will occur. Further, although the Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent dense grass beds, the likelihood of propellor damage to the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the "T" dock has been exacerbated by the concentration of boat traffic which will result by installation of that dock, over waters at the mooring site which are of insufficient depth to protect the grass bed at that location from scouring and washing from boat propellors. In view of these reasons, significant adverse impacts to the Benthic Communities and especially to the grass beds themselves will result by installation of the docking facility at the site proposed, primarily because of insufficient water depth for safe operation of boats in relation to the well-being of the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the dock and because of the shading which will result by installation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock in conjunction with the boats to be moored to it and the finger piers between the boat slips attached to it. WATER QUALITY The Respondent, through its water quality expert witness, Doug Frye, expressed the concern that the proposed project would violate Rule 17-3.051, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the State's waters be free from pollutants above a certain level measured by various accepted and codified scientific methods of measurement. In this regard, the primary concern of the Department is bacteriological quality as well as turbidity resulting from boat operation. The turbidity standards contained in the above Rule provides that State waters not exceed 29 nephelometric turbidity units above the natural background level. The Respondent contends that this level will be exceeded as a result of operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock. The Petitioner, however, presented a soils analysis and silt settling study which showed that bottom materials in the area involved consist of sand, with some finely pulverized shell and that this material settles very rapidly after being disturbed with little silt remaining in suspension a significant period of time after the disturbance. This is primarily because the level of organics in the bottom substrate is very low at this site. In this connection, the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Sheffield, anchored a 16 foot boat with a 40 horsepower outboard motor in the docking area of the proposed project. He operated the boat at 1,000 RPM for an extended period of time while measuring the resultant turbidity. The results of his measurements showed turbidity to be in the range of 5-11 NTUs. The Respondent's witnesses, however, operated a larger 21 foot boat at the location of the "T" shaped portion of the dock maneuvering it back and forth with a fairly large outboard motor in the 100 horsepower class, which might be presumed to be typical of the boats which will be using the proposed facility. The maneuvering of the boat with the larger engine in this shallow water created a clearly visible plume of turbidity shown by photographs introduced into evidence by the Respondent. In fact, however, although the turbidity plume was clearly visible, the Respondent's own direct measurement of turbidity taken from within the plume immediately after it was generated was 23.8 NTUs, still below the State standards for violations as to turbidity. The existing marina facility has a fuel dock and has adopted a fuel spill contingency plan. There will be no fueling of boats nor fuel kept at the proposed docks. Nevertheless, marinas were established to be a known source of discharge of oils and greases and the presence of more boats utilizing all the dock facilities, especially during fueling and maintenance procedures, will result in additional oils and greases being deposited in the water. Even if there is no fueling facility planned for the proposed docks, the additional boats represented by the 25 additional slips sought to be approved will have to be fueled and likely at the existing facility. This will heighten the risk of fuel, oil and grease spills. In this regard, it must be remembered that the present marina and the proposed docking facilities are in outstanding Florida waters in which no degradation of ambient water quality is permitted. In this context then, the Petitioner/Applicant has, not provided reasonable assurances that pollution levels for oils and greases will not increase as a result of the potential addition of 25 boats to this marina facility. A substantial issue has been raised in this proceeding concerning water quality as it relates to the bacteriological standard. It has been established that this marina is presently a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms which frequently are present in sufficient concentrations so as to violate the standard for that organism for Class II waters. Fecal coliform bacteria are accumulated in the bodies of shellfish. The shellfish themselves are not harmed, but contaminated shellfish can accumulate concentrations of as much as 100 times the ambient fecal coliform bacterial levels present in the waters they inhabit. Fecal coliform bacteria can cause extreme illness in human beings, sometimes even paralysis and death. Fecal coliform bacteria in State waters results from the deposition therein of human or animal waste. The Petitioner maintains a sewage pumpout station located at its fuel dock with a direct connection to its sanitary upland sewer system, as well as a portable sewage pump that can be moved to each boat slip for pumping out of toilets or "heads" on boats. Upland fish cleaning stations will additionally be provided with the proposed docks so as to prevent refuse from fish cleaning activities being deposited into the waters of the cove. The fact remains, however, that there presently exist high levels of fecal coliform organisms in the waters of the cove at the marina site, in the above noted violative concentrations on repetitive occasions. The presence of boats moored in the marina with "heads" aboard are a known discharge source of fecal coliform organisms. The Petitioner proposes to restrict boats using the facility to those boats without marine heads aboard or requiring those with heads to keep them locked or otherwise not discharge them into the waters of the marina. If boats utilizing the marina have toilets aboard, however, there is a substantial likelihood that at some point those toilets will be discharged into the waters of the cove before any of the Petitioner's monitoring personnel are aware of it. The problem is thus one of enforcement. In this regard, it is established that even with the sewage pumpout station and the portable sewage pumpout device, that there are a number of "live-aboard" boats with marine heads in the marina at the present time and customarily. This has caused the above found violations of fecal coliform, Class II water standards. Although the Petitioner proposes to restrict boats at the proposed docking facility to those less than 25 feet in length and to establish a monitoring program by the marina management personnel to assure that the boats with heads only contain heads approved by Coast Guard regulation, reasonable assurances have still not been established that the enforcement plan proposed can be effective in ensuring that no marine heads or other sources of coliform bacteria will be discharged into the waters of the cove at the project site. The plan proposed by the Petitioner simply did not ensure that boats having marine heads will not use the marina and that those persons using boats so equipped will not, on some occasions, discharge the heads into the waters of the marina at the project site nor that spills will not result in the sewage pumping-out process. The Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Porter, confirmed that most fishing boats of the open "center console" variety of 25 feet length or less do not contain marine heads, nevertheless, he established that in his experience monitoring marinas of this sort, the restrictions against marine heads of the non-approved variety and the attempted restriction against boats discharging the contents of their heads into the waters of the marina cannot be effectively enforced nor was it established that fishing boats without marine heads will be the only type of boat to use the proposed docking facilities. Accordingly, the waters of the cove at the marina site and project site are in frequent violation of the fecal coliform and total coliform parameter for Class II waters and reasonable assurances have not been provided that the fecal coliform bacterial levels will not increase as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed facility with its attendant boats. Because of the likelihood of shellfish contamination by fecal coliform bacterial levels which will likely increase if the proposed project is constructed and operated, together with the loss of marine habitat and productivity posed by the harm likely to result to the seagrass beds in the vicinity of the proposed facility due to attendant boat operation, it has been shown that the water quality parameter for biological integrity in these Outstanding Florida Waters will likely be degraded. The "Diversity Index" of marine microinvertebrates in the area of the affected seagrass beds will likely be reduced below 75 percent of background levels. Therefore, in the context discussed above, the proposed construction and operation of the 25-slip marina facility with the "T" dock will lower ambient water quality in these outstanding Florida waters and will result in violations of State water quality standards for Class II waters in the above particulars. SHELLFISH HARVESTING Mr. William Porter of the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation established that the cove where the project would be located is closed to the taking of shellfish as a result of the contamination or potential for contamination of shellfish by coliform bacteria contained in fecal material. His Department's water quality sampling confirmed the elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the cove on repetitive occasions. This elevated level of coliform organisms was shown to result from improper operation of marine toilets upon vessels using the marina at the present time. Because of the potential for contamination from vessels discharging fecal material, Mr. Porter established that the Department would likely close an area 50 percent larger than the present shellfish harvest closure area as a result of a 50 percent increase in the number of boats capable of using the marina if the proposed project is built. Mr. Porter acknowledges that if it could be assured that boats using the marina did not contain heads, the increased area of closure might be lessened after this project were built. He also established as pointed out above that such restrictions on boats containing heads from using the proposed boat slip is very difficult to enforce. Even with the present central sewage pumpout facilities and portable pumpout equipment at the existing marina, the marina still has failed to comply with fecal and total coliform standards for Class II waters on a repetitive basis. The management of the present marina has allowed live-aboard boats at the marina even though it has posted warning signs against boat owners discharging toilets in the cove waters. Mr. Porter also acknowledged that the Boca Grande North Marina, owned by Gasparilla Pass, Inc., was recently permitted by the DER and constructed and has not yet resulted in the Department's closing an additional area to the taking of shellfish. The area the marina is situated in, however, is only "conditionally approved" for the taking of shellfish, meaning that it is subject to closer monitoring by the DNR with a view toward the possible necessity of closing waters in the area of that marina. It was not established, however, how the fecal coliform or total coliform levels in the waters adjacent to that marina compare to the existing marina or the site of the proposed docking facilities at the existing marina, nor what conditions might prevail which would render that other marina a comparable site to -be used as a relevant demonstration of what conditions might be expected at the present marina if the proposed project were built and operated. Thus it has been shown that even though the Petitioner proposes limiting the size of boats at the proposed facility and closely inspecting and regulating any marine heads on boats using the facility to make sure they comply with Coast Guard regulations, it has not been demonstrated that the additional deposition of fecal coliform bacteria in the waters often the cove will be adequately prevented by the proposed enforcement measures. It is thus reasonably likely that the construction of the proposed project will lead to the closing of an additional area of water which is presently approved for shellfish harvesting. The closure of shellfish harvesting in waters is contrary to the public interest in terms of recreational values, fishing and marine productivity and others of the seven public interest criteria quoted below. Further, the contamination of shellfish, which can cause severe illness or even death in human beings, is clearly contrary to the public interest and there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish contamination is already occurring in the area due to the characteristic of shellfish by which they accumulate or store fecal coliform organisms to reach injurious levels for human consumption even though the shellfish themselves appear to be healthy. The area of the proposed project is extensively used for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting at the present time, outside the immediate closed waters of the marina within the cove. PUBLIC INTEREST Section 403.918(2) (a) (1-7) requires that the Petitioner provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest. The public interest considerations of those seven criteria concern whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or property of others: whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats; whether it will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the project vicinity; whether it will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the effect on the current condition and relative value of functions reformed by areas affected by the project. Although Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, related that the attached fouling communities, such as barnacles, which would form on the proposed docks and pilings would increase the diversity of marine habitat available, that will not offset the loss of marine habitat occasioned by the increasingly detrimental effect imposed by the project and the operation of it on the seagrass beds, in the manner discussed above. The fouling communities expected by Dr. Roessler to occur on the pilings to be installed, will not provide, nor replace the value of, the detritus (seeds and leaves) produced by the seagrass which would be lost, which is an important food source for marine organisms in the upper portion of the food chain in the area, some of which organisms include fish and have a high recreational value and commercial value. The importance of detrital production by the seagrass beds outweigh the value of the addition of the fouling communities on the pilings. In fact, the total diversity of marine species actually might decline even though the fouling organisms would be added with the installation of the pilings, once the harmful effects on the seagrass beds begin to occur after installation and operation of the proposed facility and over the life of the marina. Thus, in this regard, the project is contrary to the public interest and certainly not clearly in the public interest. Additionally, there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish may be contaminated which, in turn, will have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare. The harvesting of shellfish has a substantial recreational and commercial value and is an important aspect of the marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The heightened coliform bacteria production caused by the resultant expansion of the marina will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity and will degrade the current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the marine habitat in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Finally, there is no question that the project will be of a permanent nature. The various detrimental effects on the public interest consideration found herein are rendered more critical by the fact that there is no truly redeeming public purpose or use for this project. This will be essentially a private docking facility designed to serve the residents of the applicant's attendant real estate development. The upland development is a condominium development and the slips will be owned by the condominium owners and not open to the general public, although the Petitioner did make vague reference to an idea that some slips might be rented to members of the public. This was not established to be the case and, in any event, the primary purpose of the boat slips is to enhance the desirability of the upland development. Although the Petitioner emphasizes that the advent of the additional slips might help attract as much as $1,000,000 additional revenue to the Boca Grande area by assisting the applicant in hosting the Annual Tarpon Release Fishing Tournament, it is also true that any development in a coastal area will likely represent some economic benefit to that area, but there is also a substantial economic and recreational benefit to maintaining the outstanding Florida waters involved in an undegraded condition and maintaining the present Class II, approved shellfish harvesting area unimpaired. Thus, although the proposed docks might be used for sponsorship of the subject fishing tournament and it can be said that that would enhance fishing and recreational value to some extent, it was not established that the tournament will not occur and that the extra revenue and enhancement of fishing and recreational value it will generate will not occur in the Boca Grande area anyway. The potential detrimental effects of the proposed project, delineated above, will also decrease fishing and recreational value over many years and for the life of this project in terms of harm to the marine habitat occasioned by the constant deposition of oils, greases and fuel and coliform bacteria in the Class II waters involved, as well as the other detrimental aspects of the project discussed above. It has not been established that the economic benefits of the fishing tournament and the addition of the boat slips will not occur but for the installation of this proposed docking facility. Although it may help relieve a shortage of marina slips in the area, it was not shown that this is the only alternative to relief of that shortage. ALTERATION OF MANGROVES The original site for the access ramp or walkway to the "T" shaped portion of the dock was selected through an on site inspection conducted in part by Respondent's witness, Andrew Barth. The mangrove area is less dense at the site of the walkway's penetration of the mangrove belt than surrounding mangrove areas. Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, has participated in many studies involving mangroves in South Florida. He identified each tree within the proposed dock pathway. Through narrowing of the dock walkway to five feet and the relocation agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Barth, it has been established that only three mangrove trees will be removed by the construction of the dock. Thus, there will be no substantial alteration or degradation of the mangrove fringe area at the project site. DOCK CONSTRUCTION Mr. C. W. Sheffield was accepted as an expert witness in the field of marine engineering. He established that the pilings will be installed using a 6 to 8 inch chisel point driven into the bottom of the sound with an air hammer. There will be no augering or other means of excavation used which would generate a substantial amount of turbidity. The air hammer will result in compaction of sediments by forces radiating out from the piling as it is driven, with the counteracting sheer force caused by the piling installation causing a slight bulging in the bottom around each piling, but nothing more. There will be no significant movement of sediment in the water column. The construction of the dock will take place moving from the land waterward, utilizing equipment mounted on the dock. Thus, construction barges will not be required to come into the shallow grass bed area with the potential for its damage. Small barges would be used in the deeper waterward portions of the project to install the mooring pilings off-shore from the end of the "T" dock. Turbidity curtains will be used during all construction, surrounding all phases of the construction work. In Mr. Sheffield's experience, such measures have resulted in no violation of the State turbidity standards at other similar projects, and are not likely to with this one. CUMULATIVE IMPACT A number of permits have been issued by the Department for docking facilities to the north of this proposal and other facilities are already in existence. Dr. Roessler opined that the geographic location of these, as well as that of this project, in light of the numerous inlets and high degree of tidal flushing and exchange through the inlets, will not result in any adverse cumulative impact occasioned by the addition of the proposed dock with 25 slips to those already existing in the Sound. It is noteworthy that, with regard to the potential this project poses for damage to the seagrass beds and for heightened production of fecal coliform bacteria, with the environmental damage attendant thereto, no proof was offered by either party concerning those considerations or effects to the extent that they might or might not exist at other marinas or docking facilities in the Gasparilla Sound area. There has been no proof to establish any cumulative impact.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject permit application, except for that portion seeking authorization for the "L" shaped dock and six boat slips attendant thereto, which should be granted with the agreed-upon conditions and restrictions contained in the above Findings of Fact. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are numbered below in the order in which they were presented (unnumbered) by the Petitioner. 1-6. Accepted Accepted, excepted for the last two sentences which are immaterial Accepted. Accepted, except as to the proffered material import of the last sentence. Accepted, except the first sentence which is not in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, except as to the last three sentences which are not supported by preponderant evidence 12-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as not being in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not as dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, except as to the last sentence which is rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except as to the third and last sentences which are rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except for the third and last two sentences which are rejected as to their purported import in the resolution of the material issues presented and as being not in accordance with the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not as dispositive of the jurisdictional issue concerning "dredging and filling" for the reasons found in the Recommended Order. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-18. Accepted 19. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented. 20-25. Accepted. Rejected as not being a complete finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted, except as to the issue of water dept which would actually be less at the critical location involved. Accepted. Accepted, but not material. 31-31. Accepted. 35. Accepted, but not truly material in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1386 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Stephen Fox, Director Division of Environmental Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ================================================================ =
Recommendation Based upon the 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
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
