The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation is entitled to the issuance of an industrial wastewater facility permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program that would authorize it to discharge industrial wastewater to the St. Johns River in Putnam County, Florida, and whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation has met the statutory criteria for a related administrative order for the interim discharge to Rice Creek in Putnam County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of wastes to waters of the State. Under approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program in the State. The Department also enforces specific water quality standards that have to be achieved in order to ensure protection of the designated uses of surface waters in the State. Respondent, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Georgia- Pacific), owns and operates a bleached and unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill in Putnam County, Florida. The plant presently discharges treated wastewater to Rice Creek, a Class III water of the State, and a tributary of the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Putnam County Environmental Council, Inc. (PCEC), alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) that it is a non-profit Florida corporation headquartered in Palatka, Florida. However, other than a statement by one witness that PCEC was incorporated on an undisclosed date prior to the hearing, PCEC failed to present any evidence to establish its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. According to the same witness, the organization was created in an unincorporated status in 1991, and it currently has 65 members who use and enjoy the St. Johns River for recreational purposes. Petitioner, Stewards of the St. Johns River, Inc. (SSJR), also alleged in the Petition that it is a non-profit Florida corporation with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. Like PCEC, SSJR failed to prove its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. Although the number of members in SSJR is unknown, "many" of its members are boaters and "most" live along the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Linda Young, is Southeast Regional Coordinator for the Clean Water Network and a citizen of the State of Florida. As such, she has standing to "intervene" in this action under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In this complex case, the parties have presented extensive and conflicting evidence regarding the factual issues raised by the pleadings. In resolving the numerous conflicts in that testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, as set forth in the findings below. The Applicant's Mill Operation Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill was built in the 1940's before the establishment of Department water quality standards and classifications. Because of the nature of the pulping process, the mill has not been able to fully meet water quality standards in Rice Creek because of poor dilution. Georgia-Pacific receives wood chips from a sister facility and purchases residual chips from local wood products facilities. Those chips are separated into pine and hardwood, conveyed into the pulp processing facility, and loaded into digesters, that is, industrial-sized pressure cookers, which cook the chips for several hours. Pulp from the digesters goes to the brown kraft, bleached kraft, and tissue manufacturing facilities. Water in the manufacturing process is used, re-used, and recirculated until it cannot be used again, at which point it is conveyed into a primary wastewater clarifier, which is used to settle out fiber and other settleable solids. Additional wastewater sources are collected in sumps located in the facility, which are discharged into the primary clarifier. The underflow from the primary clarifier flows into a solids settling area (sludge pond) while the water from the primary clarifier passes into a secondary treatment system. The secondary treatment system uses aerobic and facultative biological treatment. Stormwater at the facility also flows into the treatment system. The secondary treatment system consists of four ponds in series: Pond 1, 485 acres, aerated with over 1600 horsepower of aeration; Pond 2, 175 acres, with 140 horsepower of aeration; Pond 3, 130 acres, with 120 horsepower of aeration; and Pond 4, 100 acres. Pond 4 is a quiescent basin, used to settle solids in the wastewater before discharge. The treatment system has a very long hydraulic detention time; once water enters the system, it remains there for 50 to 60 days. After treatment, a side stream of roughly 8,000,000 gallons per day of treated effluent is withdrawn, oxygenated with liquid oxygen, and discharged at two locations in Rice Creek: 3.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-001); and 2.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-002). Under low flow conditions, effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill dominates the flow in Rice Creek. The Application Process Rice Creek is a small tributary of the St. Johns River, particularly in its upper reaches where Georgia- Pacific's effluent discharge occurs. Over the years, there have been exceedances of certain Class III water quality standards including specific conductance, color, and periodically whole effluent toxicity. Because of this, and during the permit review process, the Department began considering alternatives for mitigating or eliminating those existing concerns with the facility's discharge. In October 1992, Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for the renewal of its existing wastewater discharge permit. In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific submitted an application to the Department for the construction and operation of an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system. This application included a request to relocate Georgia-Pacific’s existing discharge to the St. Johns River. Because Georgia-Pacific submitted timely permit applications, it is authorized to continue operations based on an "administratively extended permit." In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific also applied to the EPA for a permit under the NPDES program. In October 1994, the EPA acknowledged receipt of a timely application for the renewal of Georgia-Pacific's existing NPDES permit, advising Georgia-Pacific by letter that its permit was automatically extended and that continued operation was authorized in accordance with the existing permit and 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c). On May 24, 1995, the Department advised Georgia- Pacific that the EPA had granted the Department the authority to administer the NPDES program and that its state permit and existing NPDES permit were deemed combined into one order. In response to a Department request, in November 1995, Georgia-Pacific submitted to the Department an antidegradation review for the relocation of its discharge. After Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for a renewal of its NPDES permit, the Department directed Georgia-Pacific to provide alternatives that would ensure compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific submitted a proposal to construct a pipeline that would enable it to discharge its effluent to the middle of the St. Johns River. Under that proposal, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with water quality standards as a result of greater dilution in the St. Johns River. Based on a review of Georgia-Pacific's submittal, the Department determined that Georgia-Pacific could in fact achieve water quality standards by constructing a pipeline to the St. Johns River. Likewise, the EPA concluded that Georgia-Pacific could receive a permit to discharge to the St. Johns River through a pipeline, without additional process improvements. Although the Department concluded that compliance could be achieved solely by the construction of a pipeline, it began discussions with Georgia-Pacific and EPA in order to examine other approaches that might lead to compliance in Rice Creek. These discussions culminated in a decision that Georgia-Pacific would invest substantial funds in the installation of additional technology and also be assured of some ultimate means to achieve compliance with water quality standards. On May 1, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an industrial wastewater permit, together with an Order Establishing Compliance Schedules Under 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes (the Administrative Order). In late January 2002, Georgia-Pacific submitted a request to the Department asking for consideration of two changes to the proposed permit: first, a request to relocate a groundwater monitoring well; and second, a request to review the Department's proposed mixing zone in the St. Johns River for the transparency standard. The Department also proposes a minor change in permit conditions to allow approval of the bleach plant monitoring plan to take place within sixty days after the issuance of the final permit. Both of Georgia- Pacific's requests were reviewed by the Department, and it has recommended that they be included in the proposed permit. Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits When considering a permit application such as the one here, the Department reviews the application to determine compliance with technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). TBELs are minimum industry standards that all facilities must meet regardless of their discharge location. They are predominantly production-based, and they limit the mass of pollutants that may be discharged based on the mass of product produced. Those limits generally reflect EPA's assessment of the industry standard regarding what can be met in a given discharge. In the preparation of a permit, the Department practice is to first determine the TBELs that would apply. In contrast, a WQBEL reflects how low the discharge must be (or how effective treatment must be) for a given parameter to meet water quality standards. Relief mechanisms such as mixing zones are inherent in WQBELs. A WQBEL is necessary only for those parameters for which there is a reasonable potential for the facility either to exceed the water quality standard or come close to exceeding the standard. As a matter of agency practice, the Department does not impose a limit unless there is a reasonable potential to exceed a standard. In order to determine whether there is such a reasonable potential for exceeding a standard, the Department will review past operations and other information it may have regarding the characteristics of the discharge. For a discharge such as the one proposed in the present case, a "Level II" WQBEL is required. The Department's Point Source Section, with expertise in the field of water quality modeling, analyzes the Level II WQBEL. Georgia-Pacific must meet certain technology-based standards, such as those set forth in the Cluster Rule. The Cluster Rule has been promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department and requires the installation of technologies to eliminate the use of elemental chlorine in the bleaching process. The Palatka facility far exceeds (performs better than) technology-based effluent limits. In March 1998, the Department created a document titled "Level II Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for the Georgia Pacific Corp. Palatka Mill" (the WQBEL Technical Report]. The WQBEL Technical Report has a typed notation on the title page reading "March 1998 -- Final." The WQBEL Technical Report contained the following effluent discharge limitations: The following are the effluent limitations for the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill discharge to the St. Johns River based upon results from the Level II WQBEL. Review comments from EPA Region 4 are included in the correspondence section. Parameter Limitation Discharge 60 MGD Daily Maximum BOD5 Summer (June 1 - November 30) 3,500 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 7,170 lbs/day maximum thirty day average TSS Summer (June 1 - November 30) 5,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 10,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Dissolved Oxygen 2.7 mg/l minimum Specific conductance 3,220 umhos/cm daily maximum Un-Ionized Ammonia Nitrogen Summer (June 1 - November 30) .11 ug/l daily maximum Winter (December 1 – May 31) .13 ug/l daily maximum Iron (Total Recoverable) 2.91 mg/l daily maximum Cadmium (Total Recoverable) 3.46 ug/l daily maximum Lead (Total Recoverable) 5.87 ug/l daily maximum Zinc (Total Recoverable) 480 ug/l daily maximum When the WQBEL Technical Report was approved in 1998, the Department's Northeast District Office did not prepare a separate formal notice of approval. The WQBEL Technical Report was transmitted by memorandum from the Water Quality Assessment Section to the Department's Director of District Management for the Northeast District on April 13, 1998, where it remained on file. The WQBEL Technical Report complied with the plan of study previously approved by the Department, and it met the requirements of Rule 62-650.500, Florida Administrative Code. Both the Department and EPA staff concurred with the approval of the WQBEL Technical Report. They agreed that the construction of a pipeline and the relocation of the discharge to the St. Johns River would yield a net environmental benefit without additional process improvements. Upgrades Implemented and Required in the Proposed Agency Actions As described more fully below, Georgia-Pacific has modified its production and treatment processes in such a manner as to improve its overall environmental performance. In installing some of those modifications, Georgia-Pacific undertook what was required by federal and state law. For others, Georgia-Pacific has exceeded what it was required to do under state or federal law. To comply with the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific eliminated two bleach plants and installed a new bleach plant, one which uses chlorine dioxide as opposed to elemental chlorine. The implementation of this technology is primarily aimed at eliminating the mechanism for the formation of dioxin in the bleaching plant. Compliance with the Cluster Rule generally requires, among other things, conversion to an elemental chlorine-free bleaching system. Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the Cluster Rule. Under the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific is required to sample for dioxin at its bleach plant, with a limit of under 10 picograms per liter. Georgia-Pacific has experienced reductions in the color of its effluent as the result of the chlorine dioxide conversion as well as reductions in specific conductance. The reductions in specific conductance are particularly significant because Georgia-Pacific has decreased its effluent flow, which would ordinarily increase specific conductance in the absence of additional improvements. After conversion to chlorine dioxide, Georgia- Pacific began monitoring for parameters defined by the Cluster Rule. In that monitoring, Georgia-Pacific has tested "non- detect" for dioxin and chlorinated phenolics. Specifically, Georgia-Pacific has monitored dioxin in its effluent, as well as within its process –- before dilution with other wastewater –- and the monitoring results at both locations are likewise "non-detect" for dioxin. Furthermore, levels of chloroform and adsorbable organic halides (AOX) have been well within the limits imposed by the proposed permit and the Cluster Rule. Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily agreed to install by April 15, 2006, an oxygen delignification system, or a like system that produces similar or better environmental benefits. Oxygen delignification is a precursor to bleaching, which removes lignins from the fiber before the product is bleached. This process is significant because lignin consumes chemicals, impedes bleaching, and prohibits achieving brightness targets in the bleach plant. The cost associated with the oxygen delignification system is $22,700,000. This commitment is reflected in the proposed Administrative Order and Permit. Oxygen delignification has been identified as having significant benefits in terms of reducing the color and specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific voluntarily agreed to install by August 15, 2003, a new brownstock washing system to replace four existing brownstock washing lines. A brownstock washer is a piece of equipment that washes organics away from fiber, after pulping and before oxygen delignification. The cost of this equipment is approximately $30,000,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. The new brownstock washers are not required by Department rules, but they will be helpful in reducing the specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific has also voluntarily agreed to install a green liquor dregs filter. This system would remove dregs from the effluent system and reduce specific conductance and color in the effluent. The cost of the green liquor dregs filter is $1,100,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. Under the proposed agency action, Georgia-Pacific is likewise required to install additional equipment for the implementation of its best management practices program to minimize leaks and spills in the process sewer. This equipment, including controls on the brownstock washer system, and the installation of a spill control system, pumps, and piping, has been installed at a cost of $7,100,000. Georgia-Pacific has also optimized the performance of its treatment system through the relocation of its aerators in the treatment ponds and modifying its nutrient feed system. This has led to reduced levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the discharge, as well as improved treatment for total suspended solids. In addition, Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily installed a reverse osmosis system to recycle certain internal streams, which in turn has led to reductions in specific conductance, at a cost of $3,300,000. To comply with the proposed agency actions, Georgia- Pacific expects to expend a total of approximately $170,000,000 for upgrades for the purpose of producing environmental benefits. Additional money is earmarked for other environmental performance issues, such as water conservation. Except for technology-based limits adopted by rule, the Department does not dictate how a facility achieves compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific demonstrated that its environmental performance is substantially better than required by technology-based limits. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to find that Georgia-Pacific’s commitments to process improvements will lead to a general improvement in water quality in the receiving waters. Relocation of the Discharge As noted above, because of the minimal dilution available in Rice Creek, Georgia-Pacific has never been fully able to achieve water quality standards in Rice Creek, a Class III water body. Rice Creek continues to exceed water quality criteria for specific conductance and color; historically, the discharge had experienced exceedences for the chronic toxicity criterion. Under present conditions, with Georgia-Pacific discharging to Rice Creek and Rice Creek flowing to the St. Johns River, elevated levels of color are experienced along the shoreline of the St. Johns River in the area of existing grass beds. Modeling shows that under current flow conditions from Rice Creek, those color effects are observed on the northwest bank near the confluence of Rice Creek with the St. Johns River. If the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River and discharged near the river bottom through a diffuser, it will beneficially change the distribution of color impacts both to Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Color in Rice Creek will improve, returning to its background color of 100 to 150 platinum cobalt units (pcu). Specific conductance within Rice Creek will also be markedly reduced. Because the input will occur in the middle of the St. Johns River, with higher flows and greater turbulence, there will no longer be relatively highly colored water flowing along the shoreline. Therefore, the relocation will provide a significant benefit of moving highly colored water away from grass beds and will mitigate against any existing effects on those grass beds. It is beneficial to relocate discharges to the middle of a stream, as opposed to the edge of a shoreline, where effluent tends to hug the shoreline. Therefore, regardless of the process improvements, there will be a net environmental improvement by relocating the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River The discharge from the proposed diffuser will be comparatively benign, in comparison to the present flow from Rice Creek into the St. Johns River. This is because the effluent would not reach or hug the shoreline in such a scenario but rather would be diluted in rising to the surface, as well as by its lateral movement in the direction toward the river bank. The relocation of the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River will cause improvements through localized changes in concentrations near the diffuser and the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Georgia- Pacific’s proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not result in water quality degradation, but will instead lead to a general improvement in water quality. Proposed Conditions in the Permit and Administrative Order Before certifying completion of the required manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific is required to submit to the Department a report on its ability to optimize the modifications, as well as a separate report which would determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet certain limits that would enable a continuing discharge to Rice Creek. If the water quality improvements are sufficient to achieve standards in Rice Creek, the permit would be reopened and Georgia-Pacific would be required to maintain the present discharge location to Rice Creek. Otherwise, Georgia-Pacific would be authorized to construct the pipeline to the St. Johns River. The permit is drafted so that Georgia-Pacific will verify the need for mixing zones, as well as the dimensions of proposed mixing zones, after process improvements are complete. The Administrative Order imposes interim effluent limitations during the compliance period described in that Order. The Administrative Order contains "report-only" conditions for certain parameters. For those parameters which do not have interim limits, there is no appropriate standard to apply because information on effluent and water quality conditions is incomplete. The Department also found it unreasonable to impose interim limits that will be met only after Georgia-Pacific completes the improvements requested by the Department. Under Department practice, it is reasonable to impose "report only" conditions for parameters when it is unclear whether the discharge for the facility presents a concern for potential exceedences of water quality standards. In addition, "report only" conditions are used when a facility is undertaking an effort to address problems for certain parameters during a period necessary to achieve compliance. The proposed permit includes mixing zones in the St. Johns River for dissolved oxygen, total recoverable iron, total recoverable cadmium, total recoverable lead, un-ionized ammonia, turbidity, and specific conductance. The length of each of those mixing zones is 16.5 meters, that is, limited to the rise of plume. A mixing zone is also required for transparency, which will require a length of 734 meters. Within 12 months after certifying completion of the manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will be required to re-evaluate the need for mixing zones and effluent limits and re-open the permit as necessary to include final mixing zones, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Compliance with Ambient Water Quality Standards The Petition contends that Georgia-Pacific has not provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the following standards: nutrients (paragraph 18); dissolved oxygen (paragraph 20); chronic toxicity (paragraph 21); total suspended solids (paragraph 23); iron (paragraph 25); and phenolic compounds (paragraph 26). Although no water quality standard is directly applicable, Petitioners also addressed the following water quality issues: biological oxygen demand (BOD) (paragraph 20); dioxin, "related compounds," chlorinated organics, AOX, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (paragraph 22); color (paragraph 24); and total suspended solids (TSS), which is alleged to include total organic carbon (TOC) (paragraph 94). Petitioners asserted that dioxin, chlorinated organics, TSS, and AOX are significant in considering compliance with the "free-from" standard in Rules 62- 302.500(1) and 62-302.530. In determining whether water quality standards will be met, those allegations should only be considered in reference to those adopted standards for the "free-from" standard. The effluent data establishes that Georgia-Pacific will consistently meet the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility has the capacity to comply with the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek, and there is a very high degree of assurance that it has the capability to comply with those standards in the future. In addition, Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility is able to meet the WQBELs established for discharge into the St. Johns River. Evaluation and modeling demonstrate that if a discharge to the St. Johns River is undertaken, the St. Johns River will meet Class III water standards at the edge of the mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific complies with its proposed effluent limits. Also, the effluent will meet all applicable effluent guidelines and technology-based standards adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. The effluent will not settle, form deposits, or create a nuisance, and it will not float as debris, scum, or oil. Finally, the effluent will not produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions so as to create a nuisance. Georgia-Pacific performed an analysis to determine the effluent limits that would be necessary to achieve water quality standards. This analysis included water quality modeling, which is a method of summing up inputs and losses, calculating the amount of material in a system, and determining the concentration of a substance. The model was used to geometrically represent the St. Johns River, Etonia Creek, and the reach of the St. Johns River within the study area, which extended from Buffalo Bluff (15 miles upstream of the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River) to Mile Point 50. Rice Creek enters the St. Johns River at Mile Point 74. When a model is performed, the model will yield estimates or predictions of concentrations throughout a water body. Those predictions can be compared to field observations and measurements; if the model is done properly, the calculated numbers should agree with the measured numbers. Modeling is used to evaluate future conditions based on hypothetical future changes to the system. The modeling methods and advanced time-variable models employed by Georgia- Pacific's consultants were approved by the Department. Georgia-Pacific prepared a plan of study to obtain field data in the St. Johns River for the purpose of assuring that the models would simulate observed concentrations of constituents. The Department approved that plan of study and published a notice of approval. The Department also approved the quality assurance project plan for the collection of water quality data in Georgia-Pacific's modeling efforts. After approval of the plan of study and quality assurance project plan, Georgia-Pacific's consultants performed water quality surveys in November 1994 and May 1995. The models employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants were calibrated and produced the observed water quality results. The proposed diffuser would be located about one foot from the bottom of the channel. As designed, the plume would leave the proposed diffuser and spread out, with the upper part of the plume going to the surface of the water. The plume model calculates the dilution at the centerline of the plume, where there would be a minimum of dilution. This method of using the centerline as a reference point leads to a conservative analysis, and it would require the Applicant to achieve more dilution than might otherwise be necessary to achieve water quality standards. For regulatory purposes, the Department usually uses the maximum height of the rise of the plume to determine a mixing zone, the point at which concentrations along the centerline of the plume would level off. Because of that practice, for certain parameters where the required mixing zone is less than the distance of the rise of the plume, a decrease in effluent limits would not lead to a decrease in the size of the mixing zone. Tidal actions will cause re-entrainment, that is, the movement of dissolved substances back into the plume area. This factor reduces the dilution factor that otherwise would apply to the system. This factor is accounted for in modeling by tying in a diffuser computation to a water quality model. The modeling employed by Georgia-Pacific assumes 7Q10 conditions, that is, a conservative assumption that flow is equal to the lowest one-week average for a ten-year period, where there is little dilution. The employment of this conservative method would minimize the probability of exceedences in the receiving water body. The projection employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants was even more conservative because the 7Q10 flow rate is assumed to apply through a 60-day average flow, a condition that may never occur, and would not be expected to occur once in ten years. In contrast, the use of time-variable simulations would lead to less stringent permitting requirements. The permit provides reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, or operation of the treatment system will not discharge or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. The permit provides reasonable assurance that, based on the effluent limitations determined by the Department in the WQBEL Technical Report, water quality standards would be met outside the area of the proposed mixing zone for specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, iron, cadmium, lead, and zinc. Based on additional analysis as reflected in Georgia-Pacific's proposed amendment to the draft permit, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with the transparency standard with the mixing zone described in its proposed amendment, that is, with a total length of 734 meters. The chronic toxicity criterion is a biological measurement which determines whether organisms are impaired by effluent. If impairment is demonstrated, the test does not indicate what component of the effluent is causing the effect. Georgia-Pacific is required to conduct testing for acute and chronic toxicity twice a year. Current tests undertaken in May and October 2001 are representative of effluent conditions after Georgia-Pacific undertook conversion of the bleach plant to chlorine dioxide. Those tests demonstrate that Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the acute and chronic toxicity criterion since the conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching. Georgia-Pacific is also in compliance with the biological integrity standard, based on the most recent fifth-year inspection. Because of the flow characteristics and the characteristics of pulp mill effluent, the pollutants associated with the effluent are not assimilated as the effluent travels from the point of discharge, through Rice Creek, to the St. Johns River. The particulates associated with pulp mill effluent are so small or fine that they will remain in suspension and thus not settle out in Rice Creek. In addition, because Rice Creek is channelized, there is no sloping side that would enable the growth of vegetation that would filter the water. Furthermore, even if there was a sedimentation process occurring in Rice Creek, no additional sedimentation would occur after the system reaches an equilibrium point. Although Rice Creek does cause a small decrease in BOD through oxidation, Georgia-Pacific has compensated for that factor by the injection of oxygen in the effluent. Thus, the direct piping of effluent to the St. Johns River (as opposed to a discharge into Rice Creek, which flows into the St. Johns River) would not result in any significant increase in pollutant loading to the St. Johns River. In addition, the construction of a pipeline would take place only after additional technologies have been implemented to maximize pollutant reduction. Compliance with the Reasonable Assurance Standard Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances for the proposed permit to be issued for a discharge into the St. Johns River. This finding is based upon Georgia-Pacific's ability to meet the effluent standards described in the draft permit, and modeling results demonstrating that, with the proposed mixing zones for certain parameters, a discharge into St. Johns River, as designed, will not result in a violation of Class III standards. Mixing Zones In Section H of their Petition, Petitioners challenged the proposed mixing zones set forth in the proposed Permit. Petitioners generally alleged that the proposed mixing zones were "enormous" and that they failed to comply with certain rules restricting mixing zones. In their Petition, Petitioners articulated three theories to support the proposition that the mixing zones were illegal: first, that the mixing zones would include a nursery area of indigenous aquatic life, including beds of aquatic plants of the type listed in Rule 63-302.200(16); second, that the mixing zone, by itself, would lead to a violation of the minimum criteria in Rule 62-302.500; and third, that the mixing zones, or a combination of those mixing zones, would result in a significant impairment of Class III uses in the St. Johns River. Petitioners were authorized to amend their Petition to add additional allegations to paragraphs 17 and 67 of their original Petition regarding the mixing zone. Under those amendments, Petitioners alleged that Georgia-Pacific’s proposed amendment to the draft permit would (a) improperly expand the mixing zone; (b) fail to account for the length of the diffuser; (c) improperly substitute "transparency" for "color"; and (d) prevent isolation of transparency impacts from color in the discharge. However, there is no evidence which ties those allegations to any regulatory standard that would affect the proposed agency action. Petitioners also contended that color was a surrogate for chemical oxygen demand, as well as for substances that are alleged to cause chronic or acute toxicity. However, as shown by the testimony of Department witness Maher, the permit condition for "color" was a surrogate only for the transparency standard. No evidence to support a contrary inference was presented. Petitioners also made general allegations that the proposed mixing zones are illegal, without a clear indication of what is deemed illegal about the mixing zones. Although the Petition includes a general argument in opposition to mixing zones, Petitioners were unable to suggest a legal basis for alleging that the mixing zones were illegal. For example, Petitioners alleged that certain mixing zones are enormous but failed to articulate why they are so enormous as to be illegal. They did not allege that the Department had erred by allowing a larger mixing zone than Georgia-Pacific should have received under applicable rules. Indeed, such a position would be antithetical to Petitioners' allegations that Georgia-Pacific had failed to achieve water quality standards for a number of parameters. The accepted testimony establishes that Georgia-Pacific's proposed mixing zones will comply with Department rules. No persuasive evidence was presented to the contrary. Because the effluent quality will differ from present conditions after completion of the process improvements, the proposed mixing zones will not be final until after process improvements have been made, the operation has been stabilized, and the mixing zones have been re- verified. No mixing zones are authorized in the Administrative Order. The Administrative Order contains a table setting forth potential mixing zones that are used as a benchmark to determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. The table sets out a series of hypothetical mixing zones at 800 meters, that is, the maximum presumptive distance afforded without additional relief mechanisms. Because no mixing zones are proposed to take effect in Rice Creek, there can be no issue of "illegal" mixing zones in Rice Creek. Within a range of potential discharge flows, from 20 MGD to 60 MGD, water quality standards will be met within the area of the proposed mixing zones for all parameters for which mixing zones are required. Mixing zones are allowed by Department rules and are considered a part of Florida water quality standards. In the context of the Department's permitting review, if a modeling analysis shows that the concentration of a pollutant in effluent is greater than the water quality criterion, the Department will determine if the amount of dilution in the receiving water is sufficient to assimilate the pollutants of concern. The Department will then determine either the length (in the case of a river) or area (in the case of an estuary) of a water body that would be necessary to achieve compliance through dilution. Based on chloride levels, the St. Johns River at the area of concern would not be considered an estuary under Department rules. Each of the proposed mixing zones would be less than 800 meters in length (as allowed by Department rule) and less than 125,600 square meters in area (a limitation that would apply only if the area was an estuary). The proposed discharge will comply with all minimum rule requirements with respect to mixing zones, such as those for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and the absence of acute toxicity. Likewise, the proposed mixing zones will not impact any nursery areas for indigenous aquatic life. Nutrient Issues In Section I, Petitioners contested the Department's decision to not require effluent limits to prevent a violation of the narrative water quality criterion for nutrients. For reasons addressed in the undersigned's Order dated February 14, 2002, that issue is waived based because of Petitioners' failure to file a timely challenge to the WQBEL Technical Report. In addition, based on the findings set out below, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not violate the narrative standard for nutrients. Further, the evidence shows that effluent limits for nutrients are not presently warranted. Petitioners presented testimony that the St. Johns River may be nitrogen-limited or phosphorous-limited at different times of the year, which means that concentrations of one or the other would limit algae growth at different times of the year. Relative light levels, as well as the penetration of light, also affect algae growth. Georgia-Pacific’s treatment system requires the addition of ammonia because ammonia or nitrate is a necessary nutrient for the growth of bacteria in the treatment system. Ammonia and nitrate are both nutrients. Although there can be a conversion from one form to the other, that conversion does not affect the net loss or gain of nutrients. Although nutrient issues are of concern to water bodies, it is absolutely necessary in a biological treatment system to have sufficient nutrients for the operation of the system to treat parameters such as BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility is achieving a high level of treatment while managing its system at a minimum level of nutrient addition. Management of a treatment system requires attention not only to the influent and effluent, but also monitoring of conditions within the system itself to assure adequate treatment. Georgia-Pacific is continuing to refine its procedures for doing so. The State has adopted what is referred to as the "5- 5-3-1" (advanced wastewater treatment) limitation for municipal treatment plants that discharge to surface waters. This standard refers to five milligrams per liter for BOD, five milligrams per liter for suspended solids, three milligrams per liter for total nitrogen, and one milligram per liter for total phosphorous. This limitation has been in effect for many years and remains one of the most stringent state standards in the nation. Georgia-Pacific's facility would be in compliance with those standards for nitrogen and phosphorous. Effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill increases the concentration of total nitrogen in Rice Creek, relative to background conditions. However, because of the relatively higher flow of the St. Johns River, when the load from the mill is transported to the St. Johns River, the increase in nitrogen concentration is so small as to be imperceptible. Nitrogen loading from Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill on a long-term average (prior to upgrades of its treatment plant) has been measured at 1,196 pounds per day. The average loading at Buffalo Bluff, which is far upstream of Rice Creek and the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill, is 36,615 pounds per day. Additional nonpoint sources contribute approximately 12,000 pounds per day in the study area. Thus, the loading from the Georgia-Pacific mill represents a 2.4 percent increase in nitrogen levels on the St. Johns River, a difference that cannot be measured. The largest point source of nutrients in the lower St. Johns River is the Buckman wastewater treatment plant in Duval County. That facility does not have nutrient limits on its discharge permit. Rice Creek does not provide any treatment (as opposed to dilution) for nitrogen in Georgia-Pacific's effluent. A review of probability distributions for nitrogen concentrations upstream and downstream of Rice Creek demonstrated that Rice Creek had no influence on nitrogen levels in the St. Johns River. Phosphorous concentrations from the effluent, if discharged to the St. Johns River, would dilute rapidly, decreasing to .2 milligrams per liter within the water column, five to six feet below the surface, after discharge from the diffuser, below the area in which light is absorbed at the surface of the water column. Chlorophyll-A is a parameter that is typically used as a measure of phytoplankton in the water column. Concentration distributions for chlorophyll-A at Buffalo Point (upstream of Rice Creek) matched concentrations for the same parameter at Racey Point, a station far downstream of Rice Creek. This analysis confirms that the inputs coming into the St. Johns River System from Rice Creek do not have a significant influence on the water quality of the St. Johns River, with respect to nutrients. With a discharge coming directly to the St. Johns River, and with nutrient loading being the same as from Rice Creek, the nutrient loading would not influence the St. Johns River. The Department does not have sufficient information at the present to impose a nutrient limit on Georgia-Pacific. The draft permit accounts for this issue through a re-opener clause which would authorize a limit when that information is available, if such a limit is necessary. Allegations Regarding "Deformities in Fish" Section J of the Petition includes allegations that Georgia-Pacific failed to provide reasonable assurances regarding adverse physiological response in animals under Rule 62-302.530(62), and that Georgia-Pacific has failed to provide reasonable assurances that its discharge will not be mutagenic or teratogenic to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, or to human beings, under Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. Petitioners suggest that the permit cannot be granted as proposed because it lacks effluent limits for (unstated) substances that are alleged to create potential violations of the free-from standard. This argument is barred as a matter of law for the reasons stated in the Order dated February 14, 2002. In addition, based on the following findings, this argument has been rejected because Georgia- Pacific has met the reasonable assurances standard without effluent limits on those unstated (and unknown) substances that are alleged to cause violations of those rules. Petitioners presented evidence that paper mill effluent in general contains chemicals which could cause the masculinization of the females in certain fish species, as well as hormonal effects in males. However, witness Koenig did not offer any testimony that Georgia-Pacific’s effluent, in particular, contained such chemicals. Dr. Koenig had collected no data and had not conducted any field studies in Rice Creek to support his testimony; rather, he relied on articles published by others and provided by Petitioner Linda Young. In agency practice and interpretation of the free- from standard in Rule 62-302.530(62), Florida Administrative Code, the question of whether a change is adverse depends on the overall community or population of that particular species. Tellingly, Petitioners did not present any competent evidence, through Dr. Koenig's testimony or otherwise, that Georgia-Pacific's effluent presents the potential for adverse effects on the overall community or population of any species. Dr. Koenig testified at length from his reading of studies performed by other scientists regarding changes in the hormone levels and gonadosomatic index (the relative weight of gonads) of fish in the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Rice Creek. In his testimony, Dr. Koenig relied on two published articles to address conditions in the vicinity of Rice Creek, both of which were primarily authored by M. Sepulveda. One of those articles showed hormonal changes taking place in a laboratory study where largemouth bass were exposed to mill effluent. That study also showed a change in the gonadosomatic index in the subject fish. Dr. Koenig did not offer any opinion that such changes would be adverse or that they would affect the reproduction of those fish. The other study was a field study with samples of fish at various regions in the vicinity of Rice Creek. This study did not include any fish from Rice Creek, but did include fish from the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, as opposed to reference streams. The study showed lower levels of hormones in fish from the area of that confluence, but also showed similar effects at a reference stream 40 kilometers away. No testimony was presented to support the inference that the effects represented in the two studies were adverse, within the meaning of the free-from rule. Moreover, the data from those two studies were collected in 1996, 1997, and 1998, or before Georgia-Pacific converted its bleach plant to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. Therefore, Dr. Koenig had no data to support any theory that under current effluent conditions, Georgia-Pacific is producing or will produce compounds that would cause any changes of hormone concentrations in fish. With respect to the phenomenon of fish masculinization in Rice Creek, Petitioners' experts had no data to support a competent opinion on this subject. To support his testimony, Dr. Koenig only read one article that purported to demonstrate fish masculinization in 11-Mile Creek and the Fenholloway River, and one letter from an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District [Young Exhibit 8A] that referred to "external anatomical anomalies" near Georgia-Pacific discharge points. The article attached to that letter and included in Young Exhibit 8A addressed data collected in Escambia County, and does not address conditions in Rice Creek. Petitioners attempted to present the theory that the potential for endocrine disruption or fish masculinization resulting from paper mill effluent would violate the free-from standard. As a condition to issuance of the permit, the Department proposes to require Georgia-Pacific to obtain approval of a plan of study to analyze the potential for significant masculinization effects from the discharge. Under the proposed conditions, Georgia-Pacific is required to determine the minimum concentration at which such effects may be detected. By its terms, the proposed permit may be reopened to adjust effluent limitations or monitoring requirements if the masculinization study shows a need for them. Department witness Brooks acknowledged a general concern for endocrine disruption resulting from paper mill effluent. In particular, Mr. Brooks referred to studies which showed that paper mill effluent could cause the elongation of an anal fin in the females of certain fish species. However, Mr. Brooks observed that although this appeared to be a physiologic response, there was no evidence or reason to believe that this effect was an adverse effect. Reports regarding masculinization, that is, the elongation of anal fins in female fish, are suspect because (among other reasons) the studies do not account for variances that would be expected based on the independent variables of sex, age, and growth. In any case, the data from those reports do not demonstrate significant, adverse effects in exposed populations. A critical and unbiased review of the published literature shows that impacts of masculinization are biologically interesting but preliminary in nature. Department witness Maher observed that the masculinization effect occurs naturally, and that the Department's plan of study is intended to determine whether this natural phenomenon becomes problematic or is enhanced by activity at the mill. Initial information reviewed by the Department indicates that the phenomenon is no longer experienced when a mill converts to a chlorine dioxide (ECF) bleaching process, as Georgia-Pacific has done in converting to ECF. According to witness Brooks, the observed effect known as "fish masculinization" is not confirmed to result from endocrine disruption. The Department has concluded that it has reason to be concerned about the potential for fish masculinization. From the Department's viewpoint, it is not clearly understood what is causing this effect. It has been shown that there is a direct relationship between concentration (or dilution) and the observation of those effects. This conclusion is consistent with Dr. Koenig's testimony, which observed a decline in observed effects based on the dosage or concentration of effluent. The Department has reviewed evidence showing that, with dilution, the effect of fish masculinization "go[es] away." In the Department's analysis of the fish masculinization issue in the present permit, the Department is requiring process improvements that would reduce this phenomenon, if it exists, in Rice Creek. In addition, if the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River, the additional dilution would ameliorate the concern regarding fish masculinization, and the phenomenon will "go away." To give an even higher level of assurance that the resource will be protected, the Department is requiring a study to evaluate and confirm that the issue is resolved. The process changes required in the permit, the potential for further dilution in the St. Johns River if it becomes necessary, and the evaluations required in the permit condition render it very likely that any potential for fish masculinization will be mitigated. Thus, to the extent that fish masculinization could be deemed a violation of the free- from standard, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause the masculinization of fish in the St. Johns River. Petitioners did not offer any credible evidence establishing that any specific compound or substance would cause the alleged effects of endocrine disruption or fish masculinization. Indeed, Dr. Koenig acknowledged that he was unable to find in his literature search the mechanism or chemical that is alleged to cause fish masculinization. Likewise, Petitioners were unable to suggest any concentration of that substance which would lead to those alleged effects. Dr. Koenig expressed a belief that chlorinated organic compounds from the paper manufacturing process may be responsible for endocrine disruption. Dr. Koenig also opined that within the general process of paper manufacturing, the bleaching process in particular was a concern. To the extent that Dr. Koenig may have had a concern regarding endocrine disruption from his review of studies performed using data from 1996 through 1998, it is reasonable to conclude that this concern is ameliorated by Georgia-Pacific's conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. There is no evidence to establish a relationship between the presence or absence of dioxin and fish masculinization. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard (and BOD Concerns) In Section K, Petitioners disputed whether Georgia- Pacific had provided reasonable assurance of compliance with the adopted dissolved oxygen standard. The proposed permit contains different permit limits for BOD for winter and summer, because the impacts of discharges are different during those parts of the year. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility discharges mass loadings of BOD at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet discharge standards. A review of effluent data shows that even for the worst period for performance, Georgia-Pacific's effluent was well below the proposed permit limits for BOD. A review of BOD discharges over the period of January 2000 to August 2001 demonstrates a consistent ability of the facility to meet the proposed permit limits, as well as a general trend of improvement that reflects Georgia-Pacific’s upgrade of the treatment system. Georgia-Pacific will meet the minimum standards for dissolved oxygen in mixing zones. With additional process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will also experience additional environmental benefits in the reduction of chemical oxygen demand. N. Dioxin and "Related Compounds" As to dioxin, Petitioners alleged in Section L of their Petition that Georgia-Pacific may discharge dioxin in concentrations that could cause a violation of the free-from standard. The proposed permit includes a permit condition for a plan of study to assess levels of "TCDD" and "TCDF" in fish tissue in the receiving waters. Department witness Brooks was unaware of any regulatory authority to require fish tissue sampling for dioxin. Department engineer Kohn was also uncertain of any regulatory authority for the Department to test for dioxin in fish tissue. Mr. Kohn agreed with the proposition that when a proposed permit condition is not specifically authorized by rule or statute, the condition must be withdrawn if the applicant objects. However, in this case, Georgia-Pacific did not object to the inclusion of a permit limit of .014 picograms per liter of dioxin in its final effluent. As noted above, Georgia-Pacific established that under its current effluent conditions, following conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching, the facility is "non-detect" for dioxin. The Department does not have any adopted standards for fish tissue concentrations. Petitioners presented very little evidence of dioxin concentration in fish tissue following Georgia-Pacific's conversion to ECF bleaching, and they opposed the introduction of such data into evidence. A review of available data shows that there was not a statistically significant difference between the level of bioaccumulation of dioxin in fish tissue in Rice Creek versus a reference creek. The Florida Department of Health has concluded, based on review of prior fish tissue data, that a fish consumption advisory for Rice Creek was not warranted. Total Suspended Solids In Section M, Petitioners have alleged that TSS in the effluent would cause various environmental problems. However, Petitioners did not allege that TSS in the effluent would lead to a violation of water quality standards, and they did not present any accepted testimony or other evidence to support such a theory. There is no adopted water quality standard for TSS. According to the WQBEL Technical Report, effluent levels of TSS are generally comparable to background levels in the St. Johns River. The primary wastewater clarifier is designed to remove fiber or other settleable solids from the effluent before it travels to the secondary treatment system. Total suspended solids in Georgia-Pacific's effluent are primarily derived from biota in the treatment system, rather than fiber from the industrial process. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for TSS. The facility reliably discharges TSS at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet proposed effluent limits. A review of discharge data for TSS demonstrates that Georgia-Pacific would perform in full compliance with the proposed permit limits. Petitioners presented no evidence to the contrary. Petitioners likewise presented no evidence to quantify any impacts from TSS. Color, the Transparency Standard, and Related Issues Petitioners have also alleged that the color in Georgia-Pacific's effluent would lead to nuisance conditions in violation of Rule 62-302.500(1)(a). However, they did not allege any potential violation of the one parameter traditionally associated with effluent color: the Department's transparency standard. Elevated levels of color in the effluent reduces the ability of light to penetrate into the water column, with potential effects on the growth of aquatic plants. This is translated into a "compensation point," that is, the water depth at which the light level reaches one percent. The state transparency standard prohibits a discharge from causing a decrease in the compensation point of more than ten percent, relative to natural background. The rate of decrease of light within a water column is related to increased color levels. Analysis performed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants shows that a ten percent change in compensation depth corresponds to a seventeen percent increase in color above natural background levels. Under the proposed permit, color was used as a surrogate, or alternative measure, for compliance with the transparency standard. Color was not used as a surrogate for any parameter other than transparency. Georgia-Pacific will, with additional process improvements, see additional environmental benefits in reducing the color of its effluent. For the purpose of the application, Georgia-Pacific's modeling analysis assumed that based on process improvements, its effluent would have a color of 1202 pcu. EPA's technical team had opined that Georgia- Pacific would, with process improvements, achieve a reduction in color to 500 pcu. Georgia-Pacific had opined that the improvements would achieve a color of 1202 pcu. Department witness Owen opined that the color reduction would be in a range between those two figures. Petitioners did not present any contrary evidence as to the ability of additional process improvements to reduce effluent color. Accordingly, using the most conservative (least optimistic) figure, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that before a discharge to the St. Johns River would be authorized, it will reduce the color of its effluent to 1202 pcu. The proposed permit takes into account the potential that Georgia-Pacific's process improvements will achieve greater improvements in color than anticipated. Under the proposed permit, the Department would reduce the size of the proposed mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific demonstrates that the color of its effluent is lower than projected. The modeling analysis further demonstrates that based on a discharge to the St. Johns River, assuming an effluent color of 1202 pcu, the change in compensation depth is greater than ten percent in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser. A 734-meter mixing zone for transparency would be required for a discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River. The required area for such a mixing zone is 64,000 square meters. Antidegradation Review In Section P, Petitioners have generally alleged that the Department failed to conduct a proper antidegradation analysis. More specifically, they alleged that the proposed discharge would reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them. Because Georgia-Pacific presently discharges to Rice Creek, and because a separate relief mechanism (the Administrative Order) authorizes the discharge to Rice Creek, it appears that the antidegradation issues relate solely to the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River. If the relocation had resulted in degradation of the receiving water, the Department would have regulatory authority in its Rule 62-4.242(1)(c) to consider whether Georgia-Pacific could minimize its discharge through other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse. However, Petitioners failed to allege in their Petition that the Department misapplied that regulatory authority. Moreover, under Department practice, when a new discharge or relocation of a discharge will result in an environmental benefit, it is not necessary to conduct a review of other discharge options. The Department undertakes an antidegradation analysis in, among other scenarios, cases where a discharge will result in achievement of minimum water quality standards for a given designated use but will lead to an incremental lowering of water quality. The purpose of this analysis is to assure that the societal benefits of the discharge outweigh the cost of that incremental lowering. The proposed permit will not lead to the increase in discharge of any parameter, and the permit is more stringent and adds additional parameters or limits. In addition, there is a trend of improved performance for the treatment system. In the present case, the Department has concluded that the proposed project will result in a significant improvement in water quality by the reduction of pollutants associated with exceedences of water quality standards in Rice Creek. Regardless of whether the discharge remains in Rice Creek or is relocated to the St. Johns River, the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will lead to an improvement in water quality as opposed to a degradation of water quality. Based on improvements with respect to specific conductance parameters, the ability to relocate the discharge into the middle of the St. Johns River where better mixing will occur (relative to the confluence of Rice Creek), and anticipated improvements in grass beds, the proposed pipeline will lead to a net environmental benefit in the St. Johns River and Rice Creek. The project as set forth in the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will be clearly in the public interest because it will result in full achievement of water quality standards and full compliance with the designated use of the receiving water body. The project will result in a substantial reduction in pollutant loading in Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, regardless of the whether the discharge will be located in Rice Creek or in the St. Johns River. The Department adequately evaluated other discharge locations, alternative treatment, and disposal alternatives. Studies, including a land application pilot project, demonstrated that land application was not feasible based upon impacts to groundwater resources. In their Petition, Petitioners did not dispute the Department's analysis of those factors under applicable rules. Given these considerations, it is found that Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will meet water quality standards, and it is evident that Georgia-Pacific will not reduce the quality of the St. Johns River below its Class III designation. Further, the proposed discharge will be clearly in the public interest for the purpose of antidegradation analysis. Further, the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River is important to and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62-302.100 and 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Instead, the proposed discharge would provide a benefit to fish and wildlife, and their habitats. No persuasive evidence was presented that the proposed discharge to the St. Johns River would adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Indeed, the record demonstrates a beneficial effect as to those factors. The proposed discharge has not been shown to be inconsistent with the applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM plan). Rather, the evidence shows that the proposed discharge would promote the implementation of the applicable SWIM plan. Monitoring Issues Section Q in the Petition generally challenged the adequacy of proposed monitoring requirements. As to this issue, the monitoring conditions imposed in the proposed permit are sufficient to ensure compliance with the proposed permit. Petitioner Young's witness Gilbert agreed that the proposed monitoring conditions were adequate to determine the result of process changes, that the proposed monitoring conditions were comprehensive, and that those conditions were beyond what the Department normally required. The Department does not propose to engage in water quality sampling at the end of the diffuser or at the edge of the mixing zone because of the technical difficulties associated with such an endeavor. Instead, the process for determining compliance is to determine the condition of the effluent and simulate water quality conditions of the receiving water body under low-flow conditions (when the river would be most vulnerable to pollution discharges). Such an approach is more protective because it eliminates variables that may not be representative of worst-case conditions. The evidence shows that the size of Georgia- Pacific's facility renders it impracticable for Georgia- Pacific to compromise the integrity of sampling results, as suggested by Petitioners. Flow Limitations In their Petition, Petitioners also contended that the proposed agency action violates Rules 62-4.240(3)(a) and 62-620.310(9)(a) by failing to specify the volume of discharge or flows. Under Department practice, flow must be specified but is not necessarily limited. Flow was adequately specified in the proposed permit, where the facility is described as 40 MGD wastewater treatment facility with a 22 MGD expected average flow. Volume limits are indirectly set through the establishment of a mixing zone and through mass loading limits in the permit, such as the loading limits for BOD and suspended solids. When flow is increased and the concentration of the effluent remains constant, the flow would be limited by the mass limits in the permit. Furthermore, the pipe and diffuser will have a hydraulic limitation, that is, a physical limitation on the amount that can physically be discharged. The pipeline and diffuser are hydraulically limited to 60 MGD based on the current design. Over a ten-year period, Georgia-Pacific has shown a trend toward reduced effluent flow. For example, in 1991, Georgia-Pacific discharged just under 40,000,000 gallons per day (GPD). In 2001, the discharge was less than 24,000,000 GPD. As a result of water conservation measures, Georgia- Pacific has been able to achieve a substantial reduction in effluent flow even when it experienced increased storm water flow into the treatment system. Because of stormwater inputs into the treatment system, it is very difficult to set a flow limit on the discharge from a pulp and paper mill. Indeed, the Department does not typically impose volume limits on NPDES permits for pulp and paper mills. Where volume or flow limits are imposed on pulp and paper mills, they are necessary in order to assure compliance with a specific standard. The Administrative Order Georgia-Pacific has submitted plans and a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. No contrary evidence was presented, and no alternative construction schedule was proposed by Petitioners. In assessing a schedule to achieve compliance, the Department considered the time necessary to construct additional improvements as well as the reasonableness of the time period in light of Georgia-Pacific's capital investment. As part of this analysis, the Department also considered Georgia-Pacific's commitment to go beyond what they were legally required to do in environmental upgrades. The schedule of compliance is reasonable, given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required of Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific needs permission to continue its discharge to Rice Creek for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, and operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. The time period described in the Administrative Order will enable Georgia-Pacific to maximize the operation of the process improvements in order to determine if the discharge can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. Given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required in the permit and Administrative Order, the schedule of compliance set forth in the Administrative Order is reasonable. There is no present, reasonable alternative means of disposing of wastewater other than to discharge it into waters of the State. In their Petition, Petitioners contested the Department's general antidegradation analysis but did not allege that any alternative means of disposal were improperly overlooked. The Department does not have specific regulatory authority to require facilities such as Georgia-Pacific to consider re-use as part of its antidegradation analysis, as it does with domestic waste discharges. Nonetheless, the Department did look at re-use and land application and determined that they were not feasible alternatives. Although it was not specifically required to do so by rule, Georgia- Pacific had exhausted every reasonable means to re-use (rather than discharge) water from its facility. Under earlier authorizations, Georgia-Pacific was not required to achieve standards for color, conductance, and chronic toxicity in Rice Creek. The granting of an operation permit will be in the public interest. This is because Putnam County will suffer an adverse economic impact if the facility is shut down and there will be net environmental benefits achieved through compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Administrative Order. The Permit requires Georgia-Pacific to submit a written report to the Department if it appears that a mixing zone is needed for chronic whole effluent toxicity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order (1) issuing proposed permit number FL0002763 to Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as set forth in Department Exhibit 175, and with the change in the permit conditions as requested in Georgia-Pacific Exhibit 102 and proposed by the Department during the hearing, and (2) approving Administrative Order No. 039-NE as set forth in Department Exhibit 176. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, No. 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Jessica C. Landman, Esquire 1200 New York Avenue, Northwest Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Terry Cole, Esquire Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Teri L. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Thomas R. Gould, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, E. F. Guyton, has filed an application for a permit which would allow the dredging of a boat slip and construction of a sedimentation basin with boat storage, specifically requiring the excavation of a boat basin, access canal, and access channel on his property which is located on the west shore of Crescent Lake, in Putnam County, Florida. The permit application number is 54-6806. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida which has the responsibility of appraising those applications such as the one submitted by the Petitioner, E. F. Guyton, and making a decision to grant or deny that permit. The authority for such action on the part of the Respondent resides in Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code. This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent's letter of intent to deny the application, as dated August 22, 1978, after which the Petitioner has filed its petition challenging that intent to deny and requesting that the permit be granted. The petition in behalf of the Petitioner was received by the office of the Respondent on September 8, 1978. It was subsequently assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration and that Notice of Assignment was dated September 28, 1978. The proposal for permit calls for excavation of a boat basin 100 feet wide and 480 feet long, leading into an access canal 25 feet wide and 500 feet long. This excavation is in the vicinity of an existing intermittent natural stream. The proposal would call for the removal of approximately 21,000 cubic yards of silt and sand, landward of mean high water. The excavation would be accomplished by use of a dragline to a depth of -2.0 feet MSL. The basin and canal slopes would be 2:1 and stabilization of slopes would be assured by riprap and grassing. A concrete spillway would be constructed at the upper end of the basin to direct the stream flow into the basin. In addition, the proposal calls for the dredging of an access channel through the shallow littoral zone of Crescent Lake to the mouth of the proposed access canal. The dredging involved with the access channel would cause the removal of 400 cubic yards of sediment from an area 250 feet long and as wide as 30 feet. The proposed depth of the channel is 2.0 feet MSL and slide slopes would be 5:1. The spoil would be pumped to a dike holding area on adjacent uplands. The Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, which is the permit application, offers a sketch of the boat basin with secondary sedimentation feature and the attendant access canal and channel. The project lies between U.S. Highway 17 and Crescent Lake, Areas to the south and west of the site are pasture and bayhead wetlands and they serve as a watershed for the aforementioned intermittent stream. Other upland areas in the vicinity are dominated by fully-drained flat woods and well-drained sand hill and messic oak terrain. The project site waterward of the mean high water is part of a shallow littoral zone of the west shore of Cresent Lake. The intermittent stream receives the runoff from the pastureland and drainage from U.S. Highway 17. There is a pronounced change in elevation during the course of the intermittent stream. The submerged littoral zone of the lake, which includes the proposed site of the access canal, falls away at a gentle slope and includes a number of supporting hardwoods, predominantly bald cypress. The area also includes submerged emergent vegetation, which is found in the shallows offshore. These shallows are exposed to favorable sunlight from the point of view of the health of this vegetation. The vegetation includes an emergent bed of oft stem bulrush (Sicrpus validus) which is in line with the proposed channel. Within the photic zone there is submerged tape grass (Valisneria americana) and naiad (Najas sp.). On the shore of Crescent Lake at the project site is found a hardwood swamp in its natural form, together with a creekbed which divides into numerous channels fanning out in the direction of the lake itself. This area of the creekbed contains bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp ash (Fraxinus panciflora), black willow (Salix nigra), black gum (Nyssa biflra), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). The herbs and ferns in this area include penny wort (Hydrocotyl umbellata), arrow- arum (Peltandra virginica), leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). The sediments found in the creek area are sandy to silty sand. In the area where the boat basin/sedimentation facility would be located, the present intermittent stream is much more confined than in the area of the creekbed. Only in times of heavy rainfall does the water come outside the banks of the intermittent stream and inundate the surrounding territory. This portion of the stream is densely vegetated by a mixture of hydrophytes, facultative hydrophytes, an optimally situated upland species. These include sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), black gum (Nyssa biflora), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Additionally, there are slash pine (Pinus elliotii), long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), dahoon (Ilex cassine), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), water oak (Quercus nigra), wild azalea (Ericaceae), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). The sedminets in this area range from very sandy in the slightly higher elevations adjacent to the stream bed to a heavy peat which is found predominantly in the bay tree locations. The uplands in the agricultural area are dominated by water oak, slash pine, long leaf pine, live oak and saw palmetto. A more graphic depiction of the project site and in particular as it relates to the intermittent stream, shore line upland agricultural area, and U.S. Highway 17 may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 and the Respondent's Exhibits 2 through 15, which are photographs of the project site. There are numerous varieties of fish in the area of Crescent Lake through which the access channel would be routed. These include: Seminole killifish (Fundulus seminolis), naked goby (Gobiosoma bosci), black bullhead (Ictalurus melas), brook silversides (Labidesthes sicculus), sunfish (Lepomis sp.), large-mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) . In addition, there are 35 species of invertebrates which were collected in the studies made by employees of the Respondent in their assessment of this permit application. The names of those invertebrates may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 19 which was admitted into evidence in the course of the hearing. The vegetation and shallow water with a sandy bottom, together with the numbers and species of macro invertebrates, small fishes and immature game fishes point to the fact that this part of the lake serves as a valuable site for the propagation of fish, otherwise referred to as a spawning ground. The water quality in Crescent Lake at the site of the project is good, from the standpoint of gross observations. However, there have been some indications of eutrophication in Cresent Lake. A more complete understanding of the water quality may be gained from an examination of the Respondent's Exhibits 21 through 41 admitted into evidence. These exhibits are constituted of certain water quality reports rendered after extensive testing in Crescent Lake. The rainfall in the area exceeds 54 inches a year, with 50 percent of that rainfall being recorded in the wettest quarter, in which over 7 inches a month would fall. July has recorded 15 inches as a mean measurement over the last 80 years, with the month of May showing less than 2 inches, the month of September showing less than 2 inches and the month of October less than 1 inch. In considering the proposed project, a beginning point would be an examination of the ability of the primary filtration pond and secondary filtration function found in the boat basin, to adequately disperse the pollutants which will come into the system from the agricultural area and U.S. Highway 17. That treatment system is inadequate. The inadequacy exists because in periods of low rainfall the pollutants will settle to the bottom of the siltation system and will not be dispersed evenly. This cycle of low rainfall when followed by heavy rainfall, such as occurs in July, will cause the pollutants to be rapidly discharged from the system into the basin of the lake, either in a dissolved form or a free form, causing an unreasonable dilatorious effect to water quality and creating possible turbidity. The confined nature of the proposed channel which empties into the lake will promote scouring because the water is coming out in a more confined area than the natural access allows at present. In addition, the flow velocity in the secondary siltation system is not strong enough to flush out the pollutants in an efficient manner. Finally, channelization promoted by the system would remove a certain percentage of the biological treatment that occurs in the natural intermittent stream, thereby introducing a greater quantity of pollutants into the lake and reducing oxidation that this biological treatment and natural course of the intermittent stream bed now provides. The project, as contemplated, is very similar in its nature to the canal system in Dunns Creek, a body of water adjacent to Crescent Lake. A study conducted on that canal system revealed a very poor quality of dissolved oxygen, which falls below the water quality standards for Class III waters. (A copy of this report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 20 admitted into evidence.) These are the same standards that would apply to Crescent Lake. In addition, there is a lack of flushing and the development of aquatic weeds deterimental to the fish and invertebrates located in the area of the Dunns Creek canals. Therefore, a similar problem could be expected in the project now under consideration. If the project were completed, the excavation of the material would cause disruption of the sediment and water quality degradation if precipitation occurred during the excavation. Efforts at turbidity control would not protect against a heavy rain and the maturely vegetated stream bed and productive littoral vegetation and substrates would be lost. The long term effects of the project would cause degradation of the water quality and a loss of fish and wildlife resources in the impact area. The filtrative assimilative capacity provided by the algae, shrubs, trees and associated substrates involved in the process of absorption and in aerobic bacterial metabolism, would be eliminated by the project and replaced by an intermittently flushed, highly nutrified shallow water lagoon and canal. Pollutants associated with boat operations would further compound the water quality problems and perpetual sediment disruption would occur because of a natural result of shallow water maintenance and use of the system. Siltation and periodic discharge of degraded basin water into the littoral zone of the lake would adversely effect the productive potential and the habitat potential offered by this area in its present form. Based upon a full assessment of the project, it is established that there would be increased and harmful erosion, shoaling of the channel and the creation of stagnant areas of water. It would also cause an interference with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife to an extent that is contrary to the public interest. It would promote the destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nurseries or feeding grounds for marine life and established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as a nursery or feeding ground for marine life or natural shoreline processes to an extent contrary to the public interests. These failings are in direct contravention of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The project would be contrary to State Water Quality Standards, as developed pursuant to authority of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Thus, the Petitioner has failed to give reasonable assurances that the immediate and long term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of the State Water Quality Standards, as required by Rule 17-4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Gate Petroleum Company (Gate) has provided reasonable assurances that Water Quality Standards will not be violated by the proposed modification of Gate's dredge and fill permit No. 160462149 and whether Gate has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification of that permit will not be contrary to the public interest, nor be the occasion of adverse cumulative impacts to water quality or public interest considerations so as to make this project contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gate Petroleum Company, by and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., proposes to construct a ship- berthing facility for two ships adjacent to Blount Island Channel, along the southeastern portion of Blount Island, in the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The proposed facility would provide for the berthing of two ships of the United States Navy Military Sea-Lift Command in conjunction with the mission of the Navy's Rapid Deployment Force. The proposed facility would be located along the southeasterly portion of "Cut A" of the Blount Island Channel and will consist of a "T-head Pier", a breasting dolphin and cat walk and two mooring dolphins. The pier would be connected to the land by an approach trestle. The facility involved will be constructed by the insertion of concrete pilings into the bottom of the Blount Island Channel and in the adjacent upland, which would support concrete decks and caps. Removal of dredged material will be necessary to accomplish the project and will be performed by a floating hydraulic dredge with associated "Cutter Head." The resulting dredged material would be disposed of in a diked spoil area on either Blount Island or at the Dayson Spoil Site adjacent to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. The Respondent Gate currently holds a DER dredge and fill permit, No. 160462149, authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged spoil and the installation of an associated 5,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead. The proposed installation of the pier and mooring facilities would result in a modification of that permit so that approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead and most of the related dredging will be unnecessary and not performed. Instead, approximately 7,100 cubic yards of dredging would be necessary, without the necessity for bulkheading. The remaining shoreline bulkhead and dredging authorized under the above permit would be rendered unnecessary and replaced by the addition of two additional T-head piers and associated dredging at some indefinite time in the future. The additional piers and dredging are not involved in this permit modification application and are not before the Hearing Officer at this time. The Blount Island Channel of the St. Johns River, the St. Johns River and Clapboard Creek are classified as Class III surface waters of the state pursuant to Sections 17-3.081 and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. It has been established by stipulation of the parties that the proposed modification of the dredge and fill permit will not adversely affect navigation nor the flow of water in the Class III state waters involved. It is also stipulated that the proposed modification will not adversely affect historical and archaeological resources pursuant to Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. It is stipulated as well that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson spoil site will not violate water quality standards at the point of discharge in the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. On March 22, 1989, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation issued its intent to approve the proposed permit modification so as to allow the elimination of the previous requirement in the permit to monitor for copper at the site of the effluent discharge; the relocation of the Blount Island spoil site effluent discharge and the construction of a T-head pier on the southeast side of Blount Island adjacent to the Blount Island Channel. The Department did not initially grant the request to relocate the Dayson spoil site effluent discharge from the Corps of Engineer Channel (Dames Point Cut) to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. On January 31, 1986, Gate was issued permit No. 160462149, pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, with an expiration date of January 31, 1991. It authorizes the dredging and filling on and adjacent to Blount Island referenced above. The permit authorizes those operations in two phases, consisting of new dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards in the existing slipway and test area to obtain a project depth of 40.2 feet mean low water. Maintenance dredging was authorized in the amount of approximately 1,850,000 cubic yards in the slipway to maintain the above-noted project depth. New dredging of no more than 3 million cubic yards from the northeastern and southern margins of Blount Island to a depth of 38 feet mean low water (MLW) and 20 feet MLW on the northeastern and southern portions of Blount Island respectively, with attendant maintenance dredging, was authorized. The permit also allowed he construction of shoreline bulkheads along the eastern and southern margins of Blount Island. That 1986 permit also required disposal of dredged material from both phases of the project into diked areas on Blount Island and the existing diked off-site disposal area known as the Dayson Site, near the mouth of Clapboard Creek. Effluent from both sites was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. Effluent from the Dayson site was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut or routed by pipeline to the Blount Island disposal site for additional treatment prior to discharge. All dredging under the 1986 permit was to be done via a suction, cutter-head dredge apparatus, with the speed of the cutter-head to be controlled so as to prevent excessive turbidity; and with all dredged material to be placed in diked areas, with the effluent discharge being conducted over adjustable weirs. The dredging of the approximately 7,100 cubic yards of material associated with the modification application at issue will be performed with the same type of equipment. Both spoil disposal sites have sufficient capacity for disposal of the material involved with the construction of the T-head pier. The effluent or "de-watering water" generated from the disposal of the dredged material at the Dayson on site will be discharged through a pipe under the St. Johns River to a point near the confluence of the Dames Point Cut and the Old River Channel. That material will consist of approximately 10 percent dredged solid material and 90 percent water. The Dayson disposal site is surrounded by dikes 24 feet high and 120 feet wide at their base. They are so constructed that there will be no discharge of effluent from the Dayson disposal site to Clapboard Creek. Since 1974, over four and one-half million cubic yards of material have been disposed of at the Days on site without any violation of state water quality standards in the creek or the adjacent salt marsh. The entire 7,100 cubic yards of dredged material, together with related water could be placed in the Dayson disposal site without causing any discharge. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. has a five-year lease agreement with Leadermar, Inc. which will operate the T-head pier as a berthing facility for the two ships. The lease was scheduled to commence July 22, 1989. Under the terms of the contract awarded by the Navy to Leadermar, Inc., Gate, or its lessee, is required to maintain a 110 foot, safe working area surrounding the vessels for operation of tugs, lighterage vessels and fendering operations. The contract with the Navy does not require, however, that the safe working area be maintained at a depth of minus 32 feet "mean lower low water" as shown by Gate Exhibit 6 in evidence. 1/ Given the findings made infra., concerning the lack of adverse water quality or public interest impacts caused by the dredging, and the paucity of any attendant suspension of bottom materials in the operation of the ships to be berthed at the proposed facility, the issue of whether the contract with the Navy requires a depth of minus 32 feet "mean low water" or "mean low low water", a reputed difference of 1.03 inches according to the rebuttal exhibit of Respondent Gate, neither Gate's position nor the Navy's reputed position regarding this apparent contractual dispute item, if carried out, would have any adverse water quality or public interest impact in the context referenced in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact remains that Gate has applied for authority to recede from the massive dredging project presently authorized in the existing permit, to stipulate by this modification application that it only seeks to dredge 7,100 cubic yards of material in the area involved. Based upon the depth established by the marine survey conducted by Bennett, Wattels and Associates, there will be an adequate safe working area for tug boats, fuel barges and lighterage vessels, as well as the ships themselves, for operations involving the berthing facilities. See Gate Exhibit 5 in evidence. If the requested modification is granted, Gate will not dredge more than 7,100 cubic yards of material for construction of the pier and related facilities and in order to provide a safe working area as required under Leadermars contract with the Navy. Indeed the amount of material to be dredged for the construction and operation of the T-head pier was based upon the above- referenced Marine survey, unrefuted evidence in this record. The volume of material was calculated by using the Marine Survey depths and the "average end area method," a widely accepted method of such calculation in the marine engineering and construction field. Further, Gate adduced the only substantial evidence in this record concerning the issue of the amount of dredging involved or the extent of the dredged area, as that relates to the "safe working area" and other issues. Water Quality Gates' consulting experts performed various chemical and sediment analyses in the project area in order to establish a general composition of bottom sediments and to establish the likelihood of suspension of any toxic substances or pollutants in those sediments as a result of the dredging operation or the operation of the ships and berthing facilities. Those analyses, and their results, in evidence in this record, were unrefuted. The bottom sediments in the vicinity of the project area are predominantly fine sand with small fractions of silt. In general, the dredged material is most likely to be free from chemical or biological pollutants where it is composed of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert materials, as opposed to large percentages of organic materials, which were not shown to exist in the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the characteristics of the bottom sediments in the project area, there will be no re-entrainment of toxins or pollutants which night presently be sequestered in the sediments due to construction, dredging operations or the operations of the berthing facility and ships involved. An elutriate test was performed to predict the effect on water quality from temporary suspension of the bottom sediments during the dredging operation itself. Elutriate testing is a widely recognized, conservative estimate of contaminant releases, caused by dredging, into a water column. The parameters tested for are those specified in the Department's rules for Class III waters and include cyanide, mercury, silver cadmium, selenium, barium, beryllium, nitrogen, (unionized NH3, NO2, total TKN), fluoride, copper, iron, nickel, zinc, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The elutriate test results did not reveal any excess ion of any of these parameters in terms of the state water quality standards or as to prevailing natural background levels. There are no PCBs, hydrocarbons, heavy metals or pesticides shown to be sequestered in the bottom sediments of the Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. The chemical analyses was performed on composite elutriate samples of sediments which came from the area of the T- head pier location and the area north of the pier, where the propellers of the ships will be located and operated during test trials, after the ships are berthed at the site. Site specific chemical analyses and core borings were taken and compared with historical data or studies for these sites and found to be consistent with them. There is no likelihood of sequestered contaminants in the bottom sediments which would be released, with deleterious effect on water quality, as a result of the action of the dredge equipment or the operation of the ships after the facility is installed. Cutter-head, hydraulic pipeline dredges are not significant generators of turbidity. They are an efficient means of performing dredging and are designed to loosen and remove material from the bottom substrate, without disturbing or redistributing the dredged material around the dredge apparatus in the water column. The use of the hydraulic pipeline dredge will result in minimal water quality disturbance and any dredge-induced turbidity will be of a transitory, short-term nature. It would be localized in the immediate vicinity of the dredge's cutterhead in any event. Ambient water quality conditions can be expected to return to normal background levels in a matter of hours following cessation of the dredging activity. It is estimated by Gate's consultant witnesses that the dredging activity might be accomplished in approximately one day. It has thus been established that the relevant stage water quality standards will not be violated by the action of the dredging equipment and the dredging operation itself. Water Quality Impacts of Facility Operation The two ships of the military sealift command which are to be berthed at the proposed T-head pier are 948 feet in length and approximately 105 feet in beam. They are equipped with two main engines and two propellers. The propellers are 22 feet, 11 and 9/16 inches in diameter. The ships will be in what is known as "reserved operating status". The ships will go through a dry- docking procedure at a local shipyard approximately every two years for major overhauls, repairs and painting. Such maintenance work will not be performed at the project site. The ships will, however, undergo periodic "dock trials" while berthed at the facility. The dock trials will be conducted on a quarterly basis if the vessels have not been out on a mission in that quarter of the year. The dock trial procedure calls for the main propulsion powerplants of the ships to be put into operation and evaluated. Both main engines are tested under this procedure for approximately one hour, at ten revolutions per minute (rpm) ahead and astern. The tests are to be conducted by civilian personnel retained by the Navy or its contractor, with all appropriate safety precaution being taken. These include, but are not limited to, the manning of the bridge during tests by a master or chief mate and by rotating one engine ahead simultaneously with the other engine being rotated astern. The ships are also equipped with onboard, internal sewage treatment plants so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Only routine maintenance or repair work will be performed on the ships at the lay birth facility. The ships will be refueled at the facility from time to time with "bunker c" or diesel fuel brought in by barges. The barges will be conveyed by tugboats of no more than 16 feet draft. The fueling operation will be governed by the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and are performed by Coast Guard certified and licensed personnel. Dr. Neal Boehnke was accepted as an expert in the field of chemical analysis of water and testified on behalf of the Petitioner. In his opinion, water quality in the facility of the proposed project is poor and may contain elevated hydrocarbon levels. His opinions, however, are based upon 1982 and 1983 reports of sampling results allegedly obtained by the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Division and the DER, as well as the study entitled "Survey of Hydrocarbons and the Lower St. Johns River in Jacksonville." These documents were not introduced into evidence. While it is true that an expert may base his opinion on facts and data made known to him in the normal course of his practice at or before trial and that those facts or data may be relied upon by him in formulating his opinions, it must be demonstrated that those facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed." See Section 90.704, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, it was not established by competent evidence or testimony at hearing that the facts or data derived from these documents were of such a type as to be encompassed by this statutory section and thus they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for Dr. Boehnke's opinion. They otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay, not sufficient to support a finding of fact on the water quality impacts from the proposed project and they do not constitute corroborative or explanatory hearsay related to any accepted, competent, substantial evidence in this record for purposes of the hearsay admissibility provision in Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Dr. Loehnke's opinion concerning alleged elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the water at the project site is not credited and is rejected. Dr. Allan Niedororda was accepted as an expert in the fields of oceanography, hydrology and hydrologic assessment. He conducted a study on the potential impact to water quality in the Blount Island Channel which might result from the dock trials to be carried out as a part of the routine maintenance and testing of the ships. His study evaluated the degree to which the propeller wash from the dock trials might entrain and transport bottom sediments, any related pollutants and the effect of this entrainment on water quality in the surrounding water column. His study consisted of field sampling and measurements of currents in the area, laboratory analysis and related data analysis. Bottom sediment samples from the project area were analyzed for particle size and grain size distribution according to standard, scientifically accepted procedures. The bottom sediments in the area of the project site are characterized by a sandy sediment of a fine to medium particle size characteristic. The bottom sediments largely consist of clean sand and small gravels, with some silt composition. The propeller wash which will be generated by the testing of the ships engines was computed to have a speed of approximately one half foot per second. Maximum speed will occur about three propeller diameters behind the plane of the propeller itself or about 72 feet behind the propellers. The bottom tip of the propeller with which the ships are equipped will be six feet off the bottom of the channel at low tide. At the point the propeller wash contacts the bottom, its speed will be approximately two tenths of a foot per second. Such a velocity will not be of sufficient force to produce such sheer stress on the bottom sediments as to entrain them or, that is, to displace them upward into the water column. Dr. Niedororda established that, even if the propeller wash is added to the natural velocity of the water currents at the project site, there would be no entrainment of the bottom sediments which he sampled in the project area. It has also been established that the routine, minor maintenance of the ships and dockage facilities involved in the permit application and the fueling and other operations associated with the berthing, testing, entry and egress of the ships from the proposed berthing facility will occasion no water quality violations, so long as appropriate Coast Guard regulations attendant to fueling and the prevention of the deposition of refuse and other wastes into the waters involved are observed. Any grant of the proposed permit modifications should be conditioned upon the strict observance of those regulations and procedures, especially with regard to the potential for spillage during fueling operations. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes provides that a permit may not be issued unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether this is the case, the Department must 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 Section 267.061; The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It has been established by stipulation that the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water and that the project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Unrefuted evidence adduced by Gate and the Department have established that the project will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, welfare or the property of others, if the project is constructed, installed and operated as proposed in the modification application and as proved in this case. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, as well as fishing and recreational values and marine productivity in the project area will not be adversely affected. No harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the installation or operation of the project facility. In this connection, Dr. A. Quinton White, a member of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner, C.E.S., acknowledged in his testimony that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program proposed to be inaugurated by Gate will adequately protect any Manatees frequenting the area. Manatees are an endangered species, but it has been established that the permit modification proposed, if installed and operated, will not adversely affect the conservation of Manatees or their habitat. The Petitioner adduced no evidence on this issue or any of the public interest criteria enumerated above. The area at the project site is characterized by fairly firm consolidated bottom substrata, characterized by very few submerged grasses. Due to the sandy, hard bottom in the project vicinity, there is a paucity of marine grass upon which Manatee could feed. Consequently, Manatees do not and are not likely to frequent the area involved at the project site as that might reflect on the likelihood of their injury or destruction due to operation of the ships and any attendant vessels. Dr. Niedoroda established that the project and the attendant operations of the ships will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling and witness Gary Tourtellotte, testifying for Gate, established that the effects of the construction and operation of the T-head pier on the benthic community and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project will not induce any adverse effect on those elements of the public interest standards involved. The Petitioner offered no credible or credited evidence of equivalent value which could contradict the evidence adduced by Gate on this aspect of the public interest standards. It is true that dredging of the bottom substrata will temporarily eliminate the benthic community within the dredged area itself. It was established by expert testimony, however, that the benthic community will rapidly re-colonize itself with similar organisms to a naturally occurring degree within approximately 6-12 months. The benthic community in the project vicinity is of a low density nature, with a low diversity of organisms. Those organisms occurring in the project site area are estuarine, marine benthic species commonly associated with sandy or silty bottom substrates. Because the area to be dredged is quite small or approximately .25 acres, and the dredging operations will be of short duration, approximately one day, the dredging operations will not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic communities occurring in the project area or in the adjacent St. Johns River. The dredging associated with the project will likewise not have a significant long-term adverse impact on fisheries resources or marine productivity of the Blount Island Channel or the St. Johns River. This is because the area to be dredged is minimal in size and does not contain critical marine benthic habitat. The turbidity generated will be minimal because the sediments are predominantly coarse sands and gravels. Because of this, any turbidity occasioned by the installation and operation of the proposed facility will be very brief and not of a sufficient significance as to violate water quality standards. In view of the hydrologic analysis in evidence concerning propeller wash effects, the bottom sediments at the ship mooring area will not be entrained or suspended in the water column to any significant degree due to propeller operation of the ships. Thus the benthic community in the mooring area for the ships will not be disturbed due to currents created by the operation of the propellers. In a similar vein, it has been shown that the dredging and operation of the T-head pier and mooring facilities, including the attendant conduct of periodic dock trials and the entry and egress of the ships will not violate the water quality criteria for biological integrity. Indeed, the periodic dock trials are shown to have no impact on the benthic community, the fisheries or marine habitat involved at the project site. It was neither shown that the dredging associated with the construction of the pier and berthing facilities will have any adverse impact on fin fish or shellfish in the project area. It has been established that the project will be of a permanent nature, but it has not been established that the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity in terms of their functions as productive marine habitat, as furnishing fishing or recreational values and the like, will be adversely affected by the proposed project and attendant activity. Deletion of Copper Monitoring Requirement The 1986 permit authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million yards of dredged material with attendant extensive bulkheading in the Blount Island Channel requires also that Gate Monitor for copper every two weeks during discharges at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone for each point of a effluent discharge. Effluent from both the Blount Island and Dayson Disposal Sites is discharged into the Fulton Dames Point Cut. The Petitioner has stipulated that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson Spoils Site will not violate any water quality standard at that discharge point. Elutriate testing and other analyses submitted in support of the permit modification request to delete the copper monitoring requirement in the present permit have shown that there will be no violation of water quality standards as to copper, or any of the other water quality parameters involved due to any re-suspenions of bottom sediment during dredging. There will be no violation of water quality standards for copper, caused by the deposition of spoil, consisting of those bottom sediments, and the draining of effluent from the spoils site into the Dames Point Cut. The Department has independently verified the data submitted by Gate as a result of this testing and it has been established that there is no occurrence of any man induced pollutants in the sediments at the project site which will be deposited in the spoil site, (from which the effluent will be disposed of in the Dames Point Cut) which represents any elevation over natural background levels. The sediments to be dredged from the berthing area are not distinguishable from naturally occurring sediments and the copper values in the sediments to be dredged are no higher than those naturally occurring throughout the area. Thus there will be no adverse impact on the water quality occasioned by discharge of the effluent from the spoil site to the Dames Point Cut area due to copper occurring in the sediments or as to any of the other pollutants enumerated above. Thus, there has been no demonstrated necessity to continue monitoring the effluent from the spoil site for copper. In this regard, the Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing concerning the issue of whether copper monitoring should be continued or not. Cumulative Impact Blount Island was created in the 1950's and 1960's by the filling of its area with spoil material during the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' construction of the Fulton-Dames Point Cut-Off Channel. Since that time, port facilities and an industrial complex have been constructed on Blount Island. It is one of the principle port facilities for the City of Jacksonville. Under the 1982 DER dredge and fill permit issued to Off-Shore Power Systems, and later transferred to Gate in 1986, the developed area of the island adjacent to the original St. Johns River Channel (the Blount Island Channel) was required to be bulk-headed and the channel dredged to -38 feet MLW. The amount of material to be dredged in the old channel of the St. Johns River for construction of the vertical shoreline bulk head totalled approximately 3.4 cubic yards. The T-head pier involved in this modification proceeding, if constructed, would replace 1,000 linear feet of that shoreline bulkhead authorized by the present permit and would substantially reduce the amount or quantity of material to be dredged. Construction of the T-head pier, instead of the permitted shoreline bulkhead, will minimize dredging and the environmental impact of the facility. Gate has elected to rescind its plans to construct the shoreline bulkhead along the eastern shore of Blount Island, as authorized under the existing dredge and fill permit. Gate instead intends to seek future modification of its existing dredge and fill permit to substitute at least 2 additional T-head piers for all of the shoreline bulk head authorized for the eastern shore of Blount Island. The construction of the additional T-head piers will require substantially less dredging than is authorized under the existing permit. Instead of the 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged material authorized under the existing permit, associated with installation of the shoreline bulkhead, the amount of material to be dredged, if indeed 2 additional T-head piers were applied-for and constructed, would amount to only 269,000 estimated cubic yards, as opposed to the originally authorized 3.4 million. Kevin Pope, the DER witness, established that there are no other projects in the area, or reasonably expected to be located in the project area, which would create impacts in addition to or cumulative with the proposed permit modification project so as to create adverse water quality impacts or which would make this project, because of cumulative impact, contrary to the public interest. There are no other dredge and fill projects in the area of the proposed T-head pier which would adversely impact the waters of the Blount Island Channel and the St. Johns River. The proposed modifications are shown not to likely cause any adverse environmental results and, in fact, will result in an environmental benefit as represented by the agreed-upon recession from the extensive dredging and bulkheading authorized by the present permit. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioner to contravene that adduced by Gate and the Department, which establishes the lack of any adverse cumulative impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project, both as to water quality standards and the public interest standards involved in this proceeding.
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 a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving the proposed modification to permit number 160462149 with the proviso that the conditions contained in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law be incorporated as specific conditions in the modified permit, including the additional condition agreed to at Final Hearing that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program will be inaugurated and be incorporated as a specific condition in the modified permit. DONE and ENTERED this 11th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 12th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1980, the Petitioners filed an application for a dredge and fill permit pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, as well as for water quality certification pursuant to Chapter 401 of Public Law 92-500, as amended, United States Statutes At Large. On March 20, 1981, the Department gave the Petitioners notice that it intended to deny their application for the permit and notified Petitioners of their right to a hearing pursuant to Sections 120.57, Florida Statutes, which right they chose to exercise. The Petitioners own a tract of land adjacent to and partially within the landward extent of the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with carrying out the mandates of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated thereunder. The Petitioners propose to embark on a project involving the dredging of a canal approximately 200 feet long in a generally westerly direction from the navigable portion of the Suwannee River through the river berm into the river swamp or floodplain. Across and perpendicular to the landward end of that access canal the Petitioners propose to construct a boat basin approximately 100 feet wide by 275 feet long in the swamp floodplain. The proposed excavation would be to a depth of 6.25 feet below mean sea level and approximately 9000 cubic yards of fill material would be deposited as-fill in the adjacent swamp floodplain remaining around the boat basin and access canal. A boat ramp would then be constructed into the boat basin. A retaining wall would be constructed around the excavated areas along the north and south property lines of the property owned by the Petitioners. The property to be developed by the Petitioners lies within the landward extent of the Suwannee River in Dixie County and the Suwannee River constitutes waters of the State over which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 17- 4.28(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The project area lies within an "outstanding Florida water" as defined in Rule 3.041(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The river terrace or "berm" on the property immediately adjacent to the navigable portion of the river is caused by the natural deposition of alluvial material. The landward extent of the State waters which are the subject matter of this proceeding cross the property immediately behind this terrace and connect with the navigable portion of the river on an adjacent parcel of property. The proposed dredging operation would connect 37,500 square feet of a dead-end canal system excavated to minus 6.25 feet below mean sea level to the navigable portion of the Suwannee River. The dredging and filling operation would result in the permanent elimination of approximately 2.84 acres of the landward extent of the Suwannee River floodplain which is dominated by plant species listed in Rule 17-4.02(17) , Florida Administrative Code, which define jurisdiction of the Respondent. The proposed dredging and filling will cause and constitute a stationary installation reasonably expected to be a source of pollution. The Petitioners during the course of this application process cleared the subject property at least in part. Prior to that clearing operation, the terrace area was vegetated with bald cypress, blue beech, water hickory and sweet gum, with bald cypress and buttonbush becoming the dominant plant species progressing in a southerly direction along the terrace. Landward of the natural terrace or berm, the cypress-tupelo swamp was dominated by water tupelo, bald cypress, water ash, and buttonbush, all species listed in Rule 17- 402(17), Florida Administrative Code. An additional inspection conducted after the land-clearing operation revealed that the area was again sprouting or revegetating into the same swamp species, with the dominant species being bald cypress. The swamp area in question provides flood protection as well as control of sedimentation by the storing of flood waters and the filtering of sediment and particulates releasing them in a gradual fashion to the river system especially during dry periods when the river level is lower than that of the swamp. This also serves to augment the stream flow in the river itself during such periods. The proposed activity, by removing the trees and other plant species named above, as well as because of the dredging and filling of the swamp floodplain area, would cause degradation of local water quality. The swamp currently contributes to the maintenance of water quality in the navigable river itself by the filtering of sediment and particulates, as well as the assimilating, uptake and transforming of nutrients and other pollutants by the plant species growing on the site. The proposed project would destroy by tree- cutting, and the dredging and filling, this function of the swamp area in controlling pollution and promoting water quality in the river. The river swamp on this parcel of property, as well as on adjacent areas, serves as a habitat, food source and breeding ground for various forms of fish and wildlife. The proposed dredging and accompanying filling of the floodplain area with the associated removal of trees and other plants and increased turbidity would largely eliminate this function on the Petitioners' property and drastically alter the swamp area as a habitat, food source and breeding ground on adjacent areas, particularly downstream of the property. The most notable long-term adverse impact of this project would include excessive turbidity caused by the removal of the subject plant species and the deposition of the fill in the floodplain area. Turbidity would be a special problem during times of excessive rain and high or flood waters in the river and adjacent swamp land. An additional long-term detrimental effect will be excessive nutrient enrichment in the area due to the removal of the filtrative and assimilative functions performed by the trees and other plant life across the entire width of the swamp. As a result the adjacent areas will be unable to fully take up the nutrient load formerly assimilated by the plant life on the project area. The project will thus permanently eradicate the subject area's filtrative and assimilative capacity for nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants. Because of its physical design and dimensions and tangential exposure to river currents and tidal flow, the proposed canal and boat basin will be characterized by sluggish circulation and will lack sufficient flushing action to maintain water quality at an appropriate level, particularly with regard to dissolved oxygen content. The lack of adequate water exchange or flushing will lead to an accumulation of oxygen-demanding sediment and organic waste in the canal and boat basin. This accumulation results in low-dissolved oxygen content in the water and anerobic conditions, which result in a substantially decreasing ability for the water to support aquatic and other wildlife. The lack of water exchange will lead to an accumulation of nutrients which can result in explosive growth of noxious aquatic weeds. In turn, these weeds grow and decay and contribute through the decay process to the low-dissolved oxygen levels in the canal. Thus, the long-term effects will result in violations of water quality criteria for biochemical oxygen demand, nutrient content and dissolved The cumulative effect of a proliferation of projects such as this one involving dredging of canals and associated filling, as well as filled roads across similar floodplain areas, will cause degradation of local water quality in violation of State standards both singly and in the aggregate. Such a project ultimately alters the hydro-period of the area, which is the average time during which flood waters are retained in the swamp and floodplain area for gradual, filtered release into the river itself. The altered hydro-period will result particularly from the removal of trees and other plant species which perform a filtrative function for flood waters and associated sediment. The removal of the plant life will result in a more rapid flow of waters through the subject swamp area which will prevent sediments from precipitating out of the water before it returns to the navigable river which effect will be heightened by the presence of the turbidity caused by the deposition of the fill material and its exposure to the erosive effect of flood waters. The Petitioners additionally failed to show that the project was necessary in order for them to have access to the navigable portion of the river. The Department advocated prior to and during the hearing that a viable and acceptable alternative would be the construction of a walk-way or a bridge on pilings across the jurisdictional area in question connecting the two upland portions of the Petitioners' property. Although the bridge or walkway would require a permit, the Department took the position that it would not object to such a permit for an elevated wooden walkway and dock into the navigable portion of the river or a bridge for vehicles and an attendant boat ramp. The Petitioners did not agree to such a solution of the controversy. It should also be noted that access is available for the Petitioners to the waterward portion of the property from the navigable side of the river berm by boat. The Petitioners contend they are entitled to a permit by default on the part of the Respondent. The Department received the application on August 5, 1980. Three days later on August 8, 1980, the Respondent requested additional information and informed the Petitioners that they had to present evidence of consent to the use of the State-owned land involved from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund/Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The application was forwarded to the DNR on September 8, 1980. Another copy of the application was forwarded to the DNR on January 8, 1981. A letter from DNR to the Petitioners on approximately March 9, 1981, indicates that the application was held in abeyance pending notification of action by the DER, the Respondent herein. Ultimately, the DNR by letter of March 19, 1981, acknowledged receipt of payment for the subject fill material, but elected not to formally consent or reject the project. It has been the practice of the Respondent Department to await a DNR consent or rejection prior to issuance of its notice of proposed agency action. The Department issued its intent to deny by letter on March 20, 1981, which was 43 days after the Petitioners' last modification of its application on February 5, 1981. Thus, the application was not complete until February 5, 1981, since the Petitioners never furnished the lawfully requested information until that date.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing-findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition of Raymond H. Hodges, Jr., and Anne G. Hodges for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond H. Hodges, Esquire Post Office Box 1688 Zephyr Hills, Florida 33599 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 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
