The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4-109-0216-ERP, should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (project) related to the construction and operation of single-family homes on "Marshall Creek" (Parcel D) in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of an ERP in accordance with Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Project The project is a 29.9-acre residential development and associated stormwater system in a wetland mitigation area known as "Parcel D." It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida, bounded on the northeast by Marshall Creek, on the south and southeast by a previously permitted golf course holes sixteen and seventeen, and on the north by the "Loop Road." The project consists of thirty residential lots of approximately one-half acre in size; a short segment of Loop Road to access Parcel D; an internal road system; expansion of previously permitted Pond N, a wet detention stormwater management pond lying north of the Loop Road and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 1.15 acres of wetlands are located on the Parcel D site. The project plan calls for filling 0.63 acres of the wetlands for purposes of constructing a road and residential lots for Parcel D. Part of that 0.63-acre impact area, 0.11 acres, is comprised of a 760-foot-long, narrow drainageway, with 0.52 acres of adjacent wetland. Downstream of the fill area, 0.52 acres of higher quality wetland is to be preserved. Hines proposes to preserve 4.5 acres of existing wetland and 2.49 acres of upland, as well as to create .82 acres of forested wetland as mitigation for the proposed impact of the project. Additionally, as part of the project, Hines will implement a nutrient and pesticide management plan. The only pesticides to be used at the project will be approved by the Department of Agriculture for use with soil types prevailing at the site and only pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency may be used on the site. All pesticides to be used on the project site must be selected to minimize impacts to ground and surface water, including having a maximum 70-day half-life. Stormwater Management System The majority of surface runoff from Parcel D will be diverted to a stormwater collection system and thence through drainage pipes and a swale into Phase I of Pond N. After treatment in Pond N, the water will discharge to an upland area adjacent to wetlands associated with Marshall Creek and then flow into Marshall Creek. The system will discharge to Marshall Creek. In addition to the area served by Pond N, a portion of lots fourteen though twenty drain through a vegetated, natural buffer zone and ultimately through the soil into Marshall Creek. Water quality treatment for that stormwater runoff will be achieved by percolating water into the ground and allowing natural soil treatment. The fifty-foot, vegetated, natural buffer is adequate to treat the stormwater runoff to water quality standards for Lots 14, 15 and 20. Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, will have only a twenty-five foot buffer, so additional measures must be adopted for those lots to require either that the owners of them direct all runoff from the roofs and driveways of houses to be constructed on those lots to the collection system for Pond N or placement of an additional twenty-five foot barrier of xeriscape plants, with all non- vegetated areas being mulched, with no pesticide or fertilizer use. An additional mandatory permit condition, specifying that either of these measures must be employed for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, is necessary to ensure that water quality standards will be met. Pond N is a wet detention-type stormwater pond. Wet detention systems function similarly to natural lakes and are permanently wet, with a depth of six to twelve feet. When stormwater enters a wet detention pond it mixes with existing water and physical, chemical and biological processes work to remove the pollutants from the stormwater. Pond N is designed for a twenty-five year, twenty-four- hour storm event (design storm). The pre-development peak rate of discharge from the Pond N drainage area for the design storm event is forty cubic feet per second. The post-development peak rate of discharge for the design storm event will be approximately twenty-eight cubic feet per second. The discharge rate for the less severe, "mean annual storm" would be approximately eleven cubic feet per second, pre-development peak rate and the post-development peak rate of discharge would be approximately five cubic feet per second. Consequently, the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Pond N is designed to meet the engineering requirements of Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because the pond is not designed with a littoral zone, the permanent pool volume has been increased by fifty-percent. Additionally, because Pond N discharges to the Class II waters of Marshall Creek, an additional fifty-percent of treatment volume is included in the pond design. The system design addresses surface water velocity and erosion issues through incorporation of best management practices promulgated by the District to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including; designing side slopes of 4:1; siding and seeding disturbed areas to stabilize soil; and the use of riprap at the outfall from Pond N. During construction, short- term water quality impacts will be addressed through installation of silt fences and hay bales. The majority of the eighteen-acre drainage basin which flows into the Parcel D wetland lies to the south and southwest of Parcel D. In accordance with the prior permit, water from those off-site acres will be intercepted and routed to stormwater ponds serving golf course holes sixteen and seventeen. The system design will prevent adverse impacts to the hydroperiod of remaining on-site and off-site wetlands. The remaining wetlands will be hydrated through groundwater flow. Surface waters will continue to flow to the wetlands adjacent to lots fourteen through twenty because drainage from those lots will be directed across a vegetated, natural buffer to those wetlands. There is no diversion of water from the natural drainage basin, because Pond N discharges to a wetland adjacent to Marshall Creek, slightly upstream from the current discharge point for the wetland which is to be impacted. This ensures that Marshall Creek will continue to receive that fresh-water source. An underground "PVC cut-off wall" will be installed around Pond N to ensure that the pond will not draw down the water table below the wetlands near the pond. Pond N has been designed to treat stormwater prior to discharge, in part to remove turbidity and sedimentation. This means that discharge from the pond will not carry sediment and that the system will not result in shoaling. There will be no septic tanks in the project. The system is a gravity flow system with no mechanical or moving parts. It will be constructed in accordance with standard industry materials readily available and there will be nothing extraordinary about its design or operation. The system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained and the owner of the system will be the Marshall Creek Community Development District (CDD). Water Quality Water entering Pond N will have a residence time of approximately 200 days or about fifteen times higher than the design criteria listed in the below-cited rule. During that time, the treatment and removal process described herein will occur, removing most of the pollutants. Discharge from the pond will enter Marshall Creek, a Class II water body. The discharges must therefore meet Class II water quality numerical and anti-degradation standards. The design for the pond complies with the design criteria for wet detention systems listed in Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition to meeting applicable design criteria, the potential discharge will meet water quality standards. The pond will have low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous resulting in low algae production in the pond. The long residence time of the water in the pond will provide an adequate amount of time for pesticides to volatilize or degrade, minimizing the potential for pesticide discharge. Due to the clear characteristics of the water column, neither thermal stratification nor chemical stratification are expected. Periodically, fecal coliform and total coliform levels are exceeded under current, pre-development conditions. These are common natural background conditions. Because the detention time in the pond will be an average of 200 days, and because the life span of fecal coliform bacteria is approximately seven to fourteen days the levels for coliforms in the pond will be very low. Discharges from the pond will enhance water quality of the Class II receiving waters because the levels of fecal coliform and total coliform will be reduced. The discharge will be characterized by approximately 100 micrograms per liter total nitrogen, compared with a background of 250 micrograms per liter presently existing in the receiving waters of Marshall Creek. The discharge will contain approximately three micrograms per liter of phosphorous, compared with sixty-three micrograms per liter presently existing in Marshall Creek. Total suspended solids in the discharge will be less than one-milligram per liter compared with seventy-two milligrams per liter in the present waters of Marshall Creek. Biochemical oxygen demand will be approximately a 0.3 level in the discharge, compared with a level of 2.4 in Marshall Creek. Consequently, the water quality discharging from the pond will be of better quality than the water in Marshall Creek or the water discharging from the wetland today. The pollutant loading in the discharge from the stormwater management system will have water quality values several times lower than pre-development discharges from the same site. Comparison of pre-development and post-development mass loadings of pollutants demonstrates that post-development discharges will be substantially lower than pre-development discharges. Currently, Marshall Creek periodically does not meet Class II water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. Construction and operation of the project will improve water quality in the creek concerning dissolved oxygen values because discharges from Pond N will be subjected to additional aeration. This results from design features such as discharge from the surface of the system, where the highest level of dissolved oxygen exists, and the discharge water draining through an orifice and then free falling to a stormwater structure, providing additional aeration. Discharges from the system will maintain existing uses of the Class II waters of Marshall Creek because there will be no degradation of water quality. Discharges will not cause new violations or contribute to existing violations because the discharge from the system will contain less pollutant loading for coliform and will be at a higher quality or value for dissolved oxygen. Discharges from the system as to water quality will not adversely affect marine fisheries or marine productivity because the water will be clear so there will be no potential for thermal stratification; the post-development discharges will remain freshwater so there will be no change to the salinity regime; and the gradual pre-development discharges will be replicated in post-development discharges. Several factors minimize potential for discharge of pesticide related pollutants: (1) only EPA-approved pesticides can be used; (2) only pesticides approved for site-specific soils can be used; (3) pesticides must be selected so as to minimize impacts on surface and groundwater; (4) pesticides must have a maximum half-life of 70 days; and (5) the system design will maximize such pollutant removal. Archaeological Resources The applicant conducted an archaeological resource assessment of the project and area. This was intended to locate and define the boundaries of any historical or archaeological sites and to assess any site, if such exists, as to its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Only a portion of one archaeological site was located on the project tract. Site 8SJ3473, according to witness Anne Stokes, an expert in the field of archaeological assessment, contains trace artifacts dating to the so-called "Orange Period," a time horizon for human archaeological pre-history in Florida dating to approximately 2,300 B.C. The site may have been only a small campsite, however, since only five pottery fragments and two chert flakes, residuals from tool-making were found. Moreover, there is little possibility that the site would add to knowledge concerning the Orange Period or pre-history because it is a very common type of site for northeast Florida and is not an extensive village site. There are likely other campsites around and very few artifacts were found. No artifacts were found which would associate the site with historic events or persons. The applicant provided the findings of its cultural resource assessment, made by Dr. Stokes, to the Florida Division of Historical Resources. That agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing cultural resource assessments to determine if significant historic or archaeological resources will be impacted. The division reviewed the survey techniques used by Dr. Stokes, including shovel testing, sub-surface testing and pedestrian walk-over and investigation. The division determined that the site in question is not of a significant historical or archaeological nature as a resource because it does not meet any of the four criteria for inclusion in the National Register.1 Thus the referenced agency determined that the site in question is not a significant historical or archaeological resource and that construction may proceed in that area without further investigation, insofar as its regulatory jurisdiction is concerned. Wetlands The wetlands to be impacted by the project consist of a 1,000 foot drainage-way made up of a 0.11 acre open-water channel, approximately four feet wide, and an adjacent vegetated wetland area of approximately 0.52 acres containing fewer than 30 trees. The open-water channel is intermittent in that it flows during periods of heavy rainfall and recedes to a series of small, standing pools of water during drier periods. The Parcel D wetland is hydrologically connected to Marshall Creek, although its ephemeral nature means that the connection does not always flow. The wetland at times consists only of isolated pools that do not connect it to Marshall Creek. Although it provides detrital material export, that function is negligible because the productivity of the adjacent marsh is so much greater than that of the wetland with its very small drainage area. Because of the intermittent flow in the wetland, base flow maintenance and nursery habitat functions are not attributed to the wetland. The Parcel D wetland is not unique. The predominant tree species and the small amount of vegetated wetland are water oak and swamp bay. Faunal utilization of the wetland is negligible. The wetland drainage-way functions like a ditch because it lacks the typical characteristics of a creek, such as a swampy, hardwood floodplain headwater system that channelizes and contains adjacent hardwood floodplains. The location of the wetland is an area designated by the St. Johns County comprehensive plan as a development parcel. The Florida Natural Areas Inventories maps indicate that the wetland is not within any unique wildlife or vegetative habitats. The wetland is to be impacted as a freshwater system and is not located in a lagoon or estuary. It contains no vegetation that is consistent with a saltwater wetland. The retaining wall at the end of the impact area is located 1.7 feet above the mean high water line. Wetland Impacts The proposed 0.63 acre wetland impact area will run approximately 760 linear feet from the existing trail road to the proposed retaining wall. If the wetland were preserved, development would surround the wetland, adversely affecting its long-term functions. Mitigation of the wetland functions is proposed, which will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetland to be adversely affected. The wetland to be impacted does not provide a unique or special wetland function or good habitat source for fish or wildlife. The wetland does not provide the thick cover that would make it valuable as Black Bear habitat and is so narrow and ephemeral that it would not provide good habitat for aquatic-dependent and wetland-dependent species. Its does not, for instance, provide good habitat for woodstorks due to the lack of a fish population and its closed- in tree canopy. Minnow sized fish (Gambusia) and crabs were seen in portions of the wetland, but those areas are downstream of the proposed area of impact. Mitigation Mitigation is offered as compensation for any wetland impacts as part of an overall mitigation plan for the Marshall Creek DRI. The overall mitigation plan is described in the development order, the mitigation offered for the subject permit and mitigation required by prior permits. A total of 27 acres of the more than 287 acres of wetlands in the total 1,300-acre DRI tract are anticipated to be impacted by the DRI. Approximately 14.5 acres of impacted area out of that 27 acres has already been previously authorized by prior permits. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI as a whole will preserve all of the remaining wetlands in the DRI after development occurs. Approximately one-half of that preserved area already has been committed to preservation as a condition of prior permits not at issue in this case. Also, as part of prior permitting, wetland creation areas have been required, as well as preserved upland buffers which further protect the preserved wetlands. The mitigation area for the project lies within the Tolomato River Basin. The development order governing the total DRI requires that 66 acres of uplands must also be preserved adjacent to preserved wetlands. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI preserves or enhances approximately 260 acres of wetlands; preserves a minimum of 66 acres of uplands and creates enhancement or restores additional wetlands to offset wetland impacts. The preserved wetlands and uplands constitute the majority of Marshall Creek, and Stokes Creek which are tributaries of the Tolomato River Basin, a designated Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Preservation of these areas prevents them from being timbered and ensures that they will not be developed in the future. The overall DRI mitigation plan provides regional ecological value because it encompasses wetlands and uplands they are adjacent to and in close proximity to the following regionally significant resources: (1) the 55,000 acre Guana- Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve; (2) the Guana River State Park; (3) the Guana Wildlife Management Area; (4) an aquatic preserve; (5) an OFW; and (6) the 22,000 acre Cummer Tract Preserve. The mitigation plan will provide for a wildlife corridor between these resources, preserve their habitat and insure protection of the water quality for these regionally significant resources. The mitigation offered to offset wetland impacts associated with Parcel D includes: (1) wetland preservation of 0.52 acres of bottom land forest along the northeast property boundary (wetland EP); (2) wetland preservation of 3.98 acres of bottom land forest on a tributary of Marshall Creek contained in the DRI boundaries (Wetlands EEE and HHH); (3) upland preservation of 2.49 acres, including a 25-foot buffer along the preserved Wetlands EEE and HHH and a 50-foot buffer adjacent to Marshall Creek and preserved Wetland EP; (4) a wetland creation area of 0.82 acres, contiguous with the wetland preservation area; and (5) an upland buffer located adjacent to the wetland creation area. The wetland creation area will be graded to match the grades of the adjacent bottomland swamp and planted with wetland tree species. Small ponds of varying depths will be constructed in the wetland creation area to provide varying hydrologic conditions similar to those of the wetland to be impacted. The wetland creation area is designed so as to not de-water the adjacent wetlands. All of the mitigation lands will be encumbered with a conservation easement consistent with the requirements of Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. The proposed mitigation will offset the wetland functions and values lost through the wetland impact on Parcel D. The wetland creation is designed to mimic the functions of the impact area, but is located within a larger ecological system that includes hardwood wetland headwaters. The long-term ecological value of the mitigation area will be greater than the long-term value of the wetland to be impacted because; (1) the mitigation area is part of a larger ecological system; (2) the mitigation area is part of an intact wetland system; (3) the wetland to be impacted will be unlikely to maintain its functions in the long-term; and (4) the mitigation area provides additional habitat for animal species not present in the wetland to be impacted. Certain features will prevent adverse secondary impacts in the vicinity of the roadway such as: (1) a retaining wall which would prevent migration of wetland animals onto the road; (2) a guard rail to prevent people from moving from the uplands into wetlands; and (3) a vegetated hedge to prevent intrusion of light and noise caused by automotive use of the roadway.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting the subject application for modification of Permit 4-109-0216A-ERP so as to allow construction and operation of the Parcel D project at issue, with the addition of the inclusion of a supplemental permit condition regarding the vegetated natural buffers for Lots 16 through 19 described and determined above. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of April, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent Telese is the owner and developer of Egret Woods Subdivision on real property contiguous to state waters in Pinellas County, Florida. The property is near the incorporated areas of Indian Shores and Largo. A residential subdivision borders the project locale to the east, and tidal mangrove swamps fringe the property to the west. An intracoastal connecting waterway known as the "Narrows" lies to the west of the swamps. These state waters connect Boca Ceiga Bay and Clearwater Harbor. The proposed subdivision area is an upland strip between the existing subdivision and the tidal swamp adjacent to the "Narrows". The uplands are predominantly vegetated by live oak, saw palmettos and slash pines. In order to develop the property, and to reconfigure lots from a previously platted subdivision, Respondent Telese applied for a permit from DER to fill 0.12 acres of DER jurisdictional wetlands located at the development site. The application for the permit represents that 340 cubic yards of clean, non-deleterious sandy loam is needed to fill disturbed high marsh areas and other low areas on the proposed lots. Respondent Telese has also requested permission to install culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that run through the lots before they reach their discharge points outside of the proposed lot lines. The Petitioners are owners of single-family homes within the subdivision to the east known as Whispering Pines Forest, 5th Addition. These property owners filed a Petition in which they disputed the appropriateness of the Notice of Intent to Issue filed by DER on August 21, 1990. In support of their position, the Petitioners identified a number of areas of controversy they contend should cause DER to reverse its preliminary decision to grant the "dredge and fill" permit on this project. Elimination of Natural Drainage The first area of controversy is the Petitioners' contention that their interests are substantially effected by the elimination of natural drainage from their subdivision into the uplands referred to as Egret Woods Subdivision. The entire area was owned by the same developer prior to the creation of Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition. Essentially, the Petitioners allege that a subservient estate was created on these adjacent lands for their surface water drainage purposes which the proposed development eliminates. A review of the Notice of Intent to Issue reveals that culverts are to be placed in two of the open conveyance ditches currently transporting surface water runoff from Whispering Pines Forest 5th Addition through the uplands of Egret Woods into the wetlands. While this proposed change in the means of conveyance of the surface water may not affect the volume of water conveyed, it could adversely effect the quality of the water at the discharge points into the wetlands. At hearing, the Petitioners were unable to clearly articulate their concerns about this water quality issue. However, it is intricately interwoven into the surface water management issues. The water quality concern was obliquely referred to in the Biological and Water Quality Assessment Report where DER's application appraiser commented that the proposed conservation easements and the mitigation plantings, which replace the high marsh removed for lot reconfiguration, are sufficient to offset the potential adverse impacts of the requested fill and culvert changes to the existing water quality at the project site. Although this particular water quality issue was properly addressed by DER in its review of the permit application, it was not clearly set forth in the Notice of Intent to Issue. There is no way for a person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision to determine that DER had considered mitigation measures to prevent this adverse effect. A decrease in surface water quality would have been caused by the marsh elimination and the placement of culverts if the marsh had not been replanted, and other mitigative measures had not occurred at the locale. The Petitioners properly requested a formal administrative hearing to address surface water management issues as DER's consideration of the matter was not made clear to them in the Notice of Intent to Issue. The written report that discusses water quality as it relates to the mitigation plan was provided to Petitioner's post-hearing, after a copy of the written appraisal was sent to the Hearing Officer and all parties by DER. Planned Roadway The second area of controversy is the Petitioner's concern about the effects of the planned roadway on their properties. As the planned roadway involves the county, it is not a matter considered in the dredge and fill permit. Neither DER nor the Hearing Officer has subject matter jurisdiction. The Petitioners did not pursue this area of controversy or the road location at hearing based upon the Hearing Officer's ruling that it was not relevant to this permit review. High Water Mark and the Setting of the DER Jurisdictional Line The third area of controversy raised by Petitioners involves their collective concern about a variance in the height of the Mean High Water Line on the property on different documents presented to different agencies. The current survey for DER completed by the surveyor shows the Mean High Water Line at 1.16, while the survey submitted to Pinellas County in 1981 from the same surveyor reads the Mean High Water Line at 1.25. This was explained at hearing by the surveyor. It was his opinion as a professional surveyor that there is no basic difference between these two mean high water lines. Since the survey to the county in 1981, the Mean High Water Line has varied between 3 - 3 1/2 feet in some areas. The same methodology and simple mathematical formula was used by him during the two different surveys which were about eight years apart. The difference in the two surveys is within the tolerance level accepted within the industry and needs no further reconciliation. As a correlative issue, Petitioners raise a concern about the change in DER's jurisdictional line on various documents involving this same site over a number of years. DER's jurisdictional lines have changed since the "Hendersons Wetland Act" enacted on October 1, 1984. The jurisdictional line as depicted on this permit application was established by dominant plant species as defined in Rule 17-301.400, Florida Administrative Code, just prior to the application submission. This was the correct way to determine jurisdiction on the property at this particular point in time. Although the mean high water line may have been determinative of DER's jurisdiction on earlier permits, only the current law applies to the facts of this case. DER reviewed the jurisdictional lines as depicted on the property by Respondent Telese's consultant and found them to be properly placed during the processing of the permit application. Historical DER jurisdictional lines and permit reviews are irrelevant to this permit review as it is based upon the agency's current rules the applicable statutory criteria, and current site conditions. Fill Calculations The fourth area of controversy involves the Respondent's request to place fill on the site. When Petitioners used an engineer's scale to measure the areas to be filled on the permit drawings, their volume calculations reveal that more fill will be needed than represented on the permit application. Petitioners are concerned that this error could cause DER to approve a permit which does not accurately depict site conditions. The actual fill calculations were done by the professional engineer with a computer model based upon average elevations, depth and area. In his professional engineering opinion, his calculations were accurate, which was given great weight by the Hearing Officer. The drawings used by the Petitioners to calculate the required fill for the area were pictorial communications of what the Respondent Telese intended to accomplish at the site. These drawings were designed for descriptive purposes only and were not scaled to the extent that they could be accurately used for fill calculations in the manner applied by Petitioners. The computer modeling used by the professional engineer was the more prudent approach to the on-site fill requirements. De Novo Permit Review Although the wetlands resource permit requested by Respondent Telese is commonly referred to as a "dredge and fill" permit, there is no dredging associated with the project. The proposed placement of fill in the high marsh area of tidal wetlands on the property and the culvert placement requires construction activity in Class III Waters. Water quality impacts to the area will be a short term problem as water turbidity should take place only during construction. Specific conditions regarding construction techniques have been placed in the permit as permit conditions to minimize the impacts. There is no factual dispute as to whether the proposed conservation easement, the replacement and enlargement of the high marsh in another location, the removal of exotics such as Brazilian Pepper trees, and the planting of black mangroves will sufficiently mitigate the adverse impacts on water quality and the public interests at the proposed development. Without the replacement of the disturbed high marsh with high marsh plantings at a 1.91:1 ratio, the enhancement of the property through exotic removal, and the conservation easements at a 132:1 ratio, the Respondent Telese is unable to provide reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest under the statutory criteria established in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. The proposed project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The flooding anticipated by the Petitioners is speculative, and has not been directly related to the fill placement and the culverts in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches. Conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, will not be adversely affected due to the high marsh replacement and the fact that the area provided only marginal wetland habitat prior to the permit application due to the invasion of exotics at the site. Any impact from the proposed project on this public interest criterion is offset by the mitigation plan. The project will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The proposed plantings of black mangroves and the removal of exotics, along with the new high marsh swamp should enhance the productivity of the area. No future projects of a similar nature can be developed at this locale due to the conservation easements the Respondent Telese has consented to provide over the remaining undeveloped property owned by him in the area. These easements will allow the Department to limit and control activities that may be undertaken in these tidal waters to prevent degradation of the site from an environmental standpoint. The mitigation planting schedule provides reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated in the area as a result of culvert placement in the two conveyance/mosquito ditches that transport surface water to Class III waters of the state. Balancing of Interests In the "dredge and fill" permit application appraisal, site review, and Notice of Intent to Issue, DER considered and balanced all of the required statutory criteria to determine that the project is not contrary to the public interest or applicable water quality standards. Area of Controversy All of the areas of controversy raised by the Petitioners which are within the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction, have been sufficiently met by the reasonable assurances of Respondent Telese and the permit conditions required by DER. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, it is concluded that the harms anticipated by Petitioners will not occur. Recommendation Regarding the Assessment of Attorneys Fees and Costs Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. The Notice of Intent to Issue was vague as to how interests were balanced and how the mitigation would offset the adverse impacts that concerned Petitioners. The petition was filed and prosecuted in good faith and addressed legitimate concerns of concerned citizenry who reside on adjacent lands.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended: That a Final Order be entered approving Respondent's Telese's dredge and fill permit number 521715273, pursuant to the Notice of Intent to Issue filed August 21, 1990. That Petitioners should not be assessed attorney fees and costs as they did not participate in these proceedings for an improper purpose. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7035 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Does not allow for change in seasons or conditions. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. Not within Hearing Officer's subject matter jurisdiction. Irrelevant to this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #3. Respondent Telese's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1, #2 and #18. Accepted. See HO #1, #2, #20 and #23. Accepted. See HO #20 and #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22 - #27. Accepted. See HO #13 and #16. Denied. Contrary to fact. See HO #4 - #17. DER's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 - #3. 4. Accepted. See HO #2, #18 and #20. 5. Accepted. See HO #20, #21 and #24. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. 17. Accepted. See HO #19. 18. Accepted. 19. Accepted. See HO #19. 20. Accepted. See HO #21. 21. Accepted. See HO #18. COPIES FURNISHED: Ines D. Degnan 8410-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34636 David R. Chirington 8400-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Alton Jeffcoat 8340-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Carol B. Newton 8450-144th Lane North Seminole, Florida 34646 Steven M. Siebert, Esquire JOHNSON BLAKELY POPE BOKOR RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In September, 1985, Armand J. Houle purchased an 80 acre tract located eight miles east of the Naples toll booth on State Road 84 and approximately two miles north of Alligator Alley. The purpose of buying the property was to mine the limestone rock thereon, through a borrow pit, for the purpose of selling it as road base to the State of Florida Department of Transportation for use in the construction of 1-75 (Alligator Alley extending from Naples to the Florida east coast). While no contract has existed or currently exists, correspondence between the Department of Transportation and counsel for the Petitioner indicates that approximately 800,000 cubic yards of fill will be required in the immediate area and that Petitioner's proposed borrow pit would be the ideal source of this rock. Prior to making the purchase, Mr. Houle's associate, Raymond Chester, contacted both the Department of Transportation concerning the potential use of the rock and representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The response he received from these agencies led him to, believe that a borrow pit might well be permitted and the effort should be pursued. After Mr. Chester and Mr. Houle became partners in the property, they contacted county officials and received zoning and other local permits for the facility. It was only after this, when DER was approached again that the applicants were advised a permit would not be issued. Mr. Houle agrees that, if the permits as requested were granted, he would accept a prohibition against further development of the property after removal of the rock and fill, would allow access to the restored lakes to the public for fishing and recreation; would agree to an appropriate restoration plan for the site; and would ensure compliance with the restoration plan stipulated by the Department. After the property was purchased in late 1985, Mr. Houle approached Daniel W. Brundage, the vice-president of an engineering firm in Naples, with a view toward developing the property in question as a borrow pit. Plans were developed for application for permits with the County and Mr. Brundage, consistent therewith, visited the site on several occasions. He found some vegetation off from the site which could be related to wetlands and contacted a representative of DER with whom he went to the site to look it over. This agency representative, Mr. Beever, concluded that the property was a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Brundage nonetheless felt confident enough to begin work with the County to secure a permit to convert this land, classified as agricultural, to mining property. Consistent with his efforts, the request for conversion went through a four step process on the way to the County Commission which included approval by (1) the Water Management Advisory Board, (2) the Environmental Advisory Council which recommended same changes accepted by the Petitioner, (3) the Subdivision Review Committee, and (4) the Coastal Area Planning Council. All four subagencies recommended approval and thereafter the County granted its permit for work to begin. Assuming all permits are issued, the property will be developed in two stages. In stage one the site will be cleared of vegetation, and the top soil on Phase I, the western 40 acre parcel, removed and used to construct a berm around the entire perimeter of the site as well as between the two 40 acre parcels. The berm will be entirely within property boundaries and used to isolate any water removed from the active phase within the site so that it does not flow onto adjoining property. The eastern 40 acre tract, (Stage II) will be used for water storage during the excavation of Stage 1. It is anticipated that no water will leave the site during construction of either stage with the exception of extraordinary waterfall during rainfall or hurricane. Before any water is discharged, it will go into a storage configuration so that any sediment therein would settle to the bottom before discharge. The discharged water will be filtered through hay bales or filter screens to avoid any turbidity in the surrounding water. The design of this holding capacity in the filter system is sufficient to accommodate the water of a 25 year storm. As Stage I is completed, Stage II will be opened, and the ground water from Stage II pumped back to Stage I for storage. A similar storage and filtration system will be utilized around Stage I. Primary access to the property will be along the western boundary of 8 Mile Canal, but if this is not allowed, Petitioner proposes to build a single span bridge across the 8 Mile Canal at 40th Street to allow access to the property. After the lime rock has been excavated, the berm will be removed and the side of the property graded to form the banks of a 56 acre lake for recreational purposes. The edge of the lake will be a meandering slope at a ratio of 10:1 which will be assured by survey to be in compliance with the County plan. The lake, which will have a maximum depth of 20 feet, will be excavated at a depth ratio of 2:1 from the edge of the slope to the bottom of the lake. During excavation and prior to restoration, heavy equipment will be used for the removal of the rock such as drag lines, back hoes, motor graders, and bulldozers and an area within the boundaries of the site will be isolated and set up for fueling and maintenance. It will be floored with a membrane to prohibit oil and fuel from getting into the ground as a result of accidental spills. Storage tanks for fuel and oil will be above ground and available for immediate inspection. Waste facilities will be in the form of porta-potties and any water falling in this maintenance area will be drained to a low sump within the membraned area for storage until evaporation or safe removal. In the event of a heavy rainfall, water can be stored and anti-sedimented and cleaned and, if necessary, operations can be temporarily stopped. Mr. Brundage indicates that he has never seen any standing water on the site during his five visits nor has any standing water ever been reported to him. He is aware of no historical or archaeological sites on the property, and at no point would rock be mined within 50 feet of the property line. Dr. Durbin Tabb, a botanist, was retained by the Petitioner to prepare a plan for restoration of the site after mining operations were complete. In preparing his plan, he visited the site on several occasions finding varying plant life, much of which was grasses and rushes. In the north was a pine lowland where he saw palmettos scattered in the grassland as well as a few dwarf cypress trees. He also observed a small cluster of cabbage palms in the southern portion of the eastern tract and noted that the currently existing berm along the eastern boundary of the eastern tract is currently being invaded by exotic plant life including the Brazilian pepper. Dr. Tabb found little evidence of recent surface water accumulation; mollusk residue showed no evidence of recent viability; and he found no crawfish burrows which, if present, would show a water table near the surface. Other visitors to the site, however, did find crawfish burrows. The marsh soil shows that, at some time in the past, it was wet enough to support a soil-forming community. This is no longer' the case according to, Dr. Tabb. The process was stopped by the formulation of the Golden Gate Canal System in the 1960's. The existing marsh does, however', hold sufficient water to support the growth of muhli grass. Dr. Tabb's restoration plan is his best estimate of how the property can be restored to its previous condition by replanting native species found in the area. The program will include littoral zone vegetation to provide shelter and a feeding zone along the water's edge which does not now exist. The plan calls for the saying of the marsh soil. Since neither DER nor the client responded to his plan, when submitted, with any suggestions or corrections, he assumed it was approved. Dr. Tabb, who is also an expert in estuarian biology and zoology, concluded that the area on which this site is located is a very poor habitat for deer and panther. The red cockaded woodpecker has no trees on the property which it specifically desires and the property is a poor or nonexistent habitat for the indigo snake and the Everglades snake. It might, however, constitute a habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, but this bird has never been seen in this inland area. Panthers cross the area as do bears, but the presence of the excavated lake would be no more hindrance to them in their crossing than would the presence of Alligator Alley and the proposed 1-75. The area with sawgrass and muhli grass, which is dominant throughout the Golden Gate area, is called a "dry prairie" as opposed to a "wet prairie." While some of the same plants exist, it is somewhat different in that there are no viable wetlands wildlife organisms currently existing on the property. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, the property has lost its wetlands characteristics and only the marsh soil's water retention permits the life of the grasses currently existing. Wading birds would use the site later but do not currently utilize the area where excavation would take place. In Dr. Tabb's restoration plan, the slope to the lake would be replanted with saw and muhli grasses down to the litoral zone. From there on to the water, a palette of normal wet grasses would be planted to serve as feeding sites and roasting sites for the birds. In addition, an island planted with willows would be constructed off shore in the lake. Deer currently visit the area. They are not currently supported on the land though Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, indicated that they come out of the pine flats at night to feed on the grasses on the prairie. These deer form a large portion of the food chain for the panther, and Dr. Tabb does not consider it conceivable that the project, replanted and restored, would in any way adversely impact the Florida panther or the birds in issue here. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, it is questionable whether the site comes under the jurisdiction of DER based on the grasses present because he cannot find the water connection to confer jurisdiction. Dr. Tabb has not seen standing water on the site as he has seen on two other sites within the area where DER has granted permits for rock pits. On a site like this, the vegetation changes with the seasons. This site is not now connected to the canal along Alligator Alley by vegetation. There may have been a vegetation connection in the past, but as one goes up toward the site from the canal, the grass changes gradually from low pineland grasses found on higher ground to the lower sawgrasses found on the site in question. In Dr. Tabb's opinion, if Mr. Houle's property is to be considered a wetland, it is a transitional wetland. Turning to the issue of loss of habitat, if one assumes that portion of the property that will be converted to a lake will be denied to the panther, this is not the case for the deer which, in this area, is considered to be aquatic. Any denial of the lake area would constitute a very small negative impact compared to what is going on in other areas of Collier County. Admitting that there is a requirement to consider the cumulative impact of a project, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, this project would constitute a "may impact" situation. There is no definitive evidence as to what would happen, and he would be more concerned if the area were now a good panther habitat. It is not, however, and in fact it is no more than a habitat for the grasses which grow there. As to the wetlands issue, the only sign of exotic plant invasion is in the disturbed area around the canal which was installed approximately 18 years ago. The absence of these exotic species is, in Dr. Tabb's opinion, a clear indication that there is no flowing or standing water since the site is too dry for the germination of the seeds. There will be some removal of the biomass by the excavation of the lake. This biomass, consisting of grass primarily, is consumed by fire every year or so and insects eat it as well. Admittedly, some of the biomass is being eaten by animals of some nature and that which is converted to a lake will be removed. There is a trade-off, however. Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine biologist, prepared a report, on the water quality of the adjacent 8 Mile Canal, and other water bodies in the area. In preparation of his report, he took water samples in the areas in question, read literature on the water quality in the area, and looked at water quality data provided by U.S. government agencies and private companies. On the several visits he made to the site, he has not seen any surface water. The first time he could get water only in the adjacent canal, and he also got some water from the land borings done by Dr. Missimer on the site. Dr. Roessler is familiar with State standards for water quality and, in his opinion, the turbidity standards would not be disturbed because there was no water on the ground to be sheet flow. All water was at least three feet underground and, in addition, Petitioner has agreed to properly sod or otherwise treat the berms he will build to prevent erosion and any resultant turbidity either off-site or in the 8 Mile Canal. Dr. Roessler also does not believe the project would violate the oil and grease standards. There is nothing inherent in the mining process to bring into play oils and greases except for the possible problem in refueling and maintenance operations. In that regard, Petitioner has shown how he will provide against that by placing a membrane to prevent any oil, grease or other contaminant from getting into the ground. This area does not contain the organic mulch which produces natural oils and greases. The water near the surface of the lake will contain sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet State standards without problem. In the summer months when the dissolved oxygen count is low, generally, the lake bottom water may not meet State standards, but that happens quite frequently, naturally, across the entire area. Dr. Roessler believes that the dissolved oxygen requirements of 2.5 at the surface and .5 at the bottom will most likely be met in the lake created by this project. Concerning the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), he concludes the operation in the quarry will not artificially decrease the available oxygen below the required amount. The BOD demand in this area would not be threatened by the lake. As to the iron standard and other toxic substances, Dr. Roessler does not believe that the project will create a violation of the standard nor will any runoff increase dissolved iron in adjacent waters. Hydrogen sulfide and pharasulfide standards will similarly not be violated. Sulfides are found only in trace amounts, if at all, in natural waters. In deep limestone lakes the chemical structure is not conducive to the formation of the acidic compounds. In short, Dr. Roessler believes the water in the mine would be very similar to that found in other rock quarries in the area. These lakes are a dominant portion of the recreational fresh water fishing availability. This instant lake also will, in time, upon development of the food chain for the fish, become an equivalent fishing habitat. Dr. Roessler concurs with Dr. Tabb regarding the flora on the site, which he observed himself. This site is 15 to 18 miles from marine or estuarian waters and to reach them one would have to go down a series of canals and past a saline dam to the coast. Any runoff from the site in question would have, if any, a minuscule effect on marine waters. This site was originally a wet prairie which was drained by the Golden Gate Canal System. As such it is a relatively poor habitat for life forms generally found in cypress wetlands. Creation of this lake will, in the opinion of Dr. Roessler, enhance the game, fish, and recreational activity of the area. It would be a benefit to the animal population to have a water source for drinking during drought. There would be no adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare. Turning to the major issue of water, Dr. Thomas Missimer, a hydrogeologist specializing in ground water, visited the site, examining the canal on the east side, and the soils and rocks exposed. He took soil borings and examined the site hydrology to see what fluctuations occurred in the water levels due to rainfall. Mr. Missimer, took numerous readings from September 18 through November 5, 1987 during a period of wet weather including a tropical storm. He carefully compared the site geology to other sites he had studied and compared the flow of water through the soil. He compiled existing information on chemistry in the streams in the area to see what the natural conditions were. He looked at other man-made lakes in the area which were previously borrow pits. As a result of his studies, he concluded that the groundwater level throughout the entire period never got higher than three feet below the land's surface and often was five feet below. During the previous July through September, 34 inches of rain fell in the area which was, in his opinion, average to above average. There is some evidence, however, to indicate that rainfall in the area was approximately 33 percent below average during the period. Nonetheless, Mr. Missimer took a measurement the day after a tropical storm had deposited three inches of water on the land. The water level at that time was still three feet below land level, and there was no standing water. Both the three foot and the five foot level are well below the top of the berm sloped at 10:1 as is proposed in the restoration plan submitted by Dr. Tabb. This site has, from a hydrological standpoint, been greatly affected by the installation, of the 8 Mile Canal and the canal system to the north. As, a result of this activity, standing water has not existed for many, years since the dredging of those canals. If de-watering is a necessary portion of the mining plan, any waters removed thereby would be retained in the impoundment area described by Mr. Brundage and switched back and forth. As proposed, the plan can completely avoid any impact to off-site property by water runoff. Construction of the pit and the lowering of the water level thereby will not have a major impact on the groundwater in the surrounding areas. Any effect would taper off as the distance increased from the site and would be of little significance. This proposal would also have little, if any, impact on groundwater quality. In Mr. Missimer's opinion, water quality is currently good and will stay good. This type of rock mine is very common in the area incident to construction. Some have been used as a source of potable water by The City of Naples; by Deltona Utility Company for Marco Island; and the south area of the County. These resources are still being used. There is little difference between those currently being used as potable water sources and the proposed lake here. Mr. Missimer also indicates the project will have little impact on the sheet flow of water. Sheet flow no longer exists here because of the canals and roads already existing. If there were a sheet flow created by a very heavy rain, this pit would have no impact on it. The water level in the lake will be approximately the same as exists in the ground currently and in the 8 Mile Canal. There should be no shoaling in the canal due to the project, and the presently existing spoil bank on the west side of the canal already prevents flow into the, canal from this land. If this pit is properly constituted and maintained, and if proper mining procedures are followed there should be no effect on the 8 Mile Canal to the east or the Alligator Alley Canal to the south. There is no surface water connection currently existing between this site and either canal. As to the issue of dissolved oxygen, the currently existing groundwater on the site and in the surrounding area has little or no dissolved oxygen in it. Water coming into the lake will be groundwater low in dissolved oxygen, which is identical to the water which currently goes into the canal system. The canal gets very little oxygen from the wind because it is so narrow. The lakes to be constructed, on the other hand, will get a large amount of oxygen from the 56 acres of water exposed to the open air. Consequently, construction of the lakes would increase the dissolved oxygen content of the water in the area, at least in the lakes, down to a level of several feet. This is a positive factor. Mr. Missimer recognizes, however, that during the dry seasons, when the lake is fed solely by groundwater generally low in dissolved oxygen, the lake water which has been converted to surface water may fail to meet the Department's surface water standards for dissolved oxygen. Warmer weather generally results in lower dissolved oxygen readings and, admittedly, Respondent's readings were taken in December when the dissolved oxygen levels are higher. As a result, the comparative samples which were taken in December are not necessarily indicative of what will be the situation in the lake, year- round. Respondent's witnesses present a more dismal picture of the effect of Petitioner's proposed project. Mr. Bickner, an Environmental Supervisor with DER's Bureau of Permits and himself an expert in water quality, zoology, and ecosystem biology, first became involved with this project while the permit request was being processed in late 1986. This application was a standard form project because of the quantity of material to be excavated. As a part of his processing, Mr. Bickner requested evaluations of the project from other agencies and divisions within DER and, on the basis of his personal evaluation and the recommendations he received, concluded that the application was not permittable. He recommended it be denied. Mr. Bickner considered Petitioner's application under the provisions of Chapter 403.918, Florida Statutes, which requires a two step evaluation. In the first step, the project must be determined to meet water quality standards. If it does, as a second stage, the project must be determined not to be contrary to the public interest. The major water quality standard in issue here was that of dissolved oxygen along with that concerning BOD and other deleterious substances. The water body involved was classified as a Class III Water under the provisions of Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, since it was designed to be a recreational, fish and wildlife habitat. The standards contained in the statute and the rule relate to surface water as opposed to groundwater and, as to the public interest question, Chapter 403 provides a list of seven factors which must be evaluated. In this determination the agency has wide latitude and no one factor is controlling. In evaluation, agency personnel try to look at the project overall. Specifically, the project cannot cause or contribute to an existing water quality violation. In evaluation, agency personnel do not look at the project by itself. They must keep in mind that other projects exist or are proposed for the area. This is known as the cumulative impact of the project which is provided for in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. As to the variance requested, this is also provided for by statute. The criteria require that the petition be based on some specific ground. In the instant case, the ground utilized by Petitioner was that there was no alternative to the dissolved oxygen level proposed. Granting of a variance is totally within the discretion of the Department even if Petitioner can show grounds therefor. Mr. Bickner was at the site only once. He approached from the south. At the low end of the approach was a mixture of wetlands and upland vegetation, but as he got toward the site the upland species dropped off and only the wetland species only remained. These were primarily sawgrass, cattails, and the like. He was satisfied that there was no obvious break in jurisdiction, and the testimony of Mr. Beever confirmed that jurisdiction over the site was gained through the wetlands character of the property from the site down to the Alligator Alley Canal, which is considered a water of the state. The site consists primarily of sawgrass and muhli grass with minor amounts of other grasses. The site seems to rise toward the 8 Mile Canal where there is an invasion of Brazilian peppers and other exotic species. Mr. Bickner was looking for upland species and found only one specimen of one species, a few of another, and no invasion of slash pine on the site at all. As a result, he concluded that the site was not an upland site. There was no standing water on the site at the time Mr. Bickner visited it, but the soil was wet to the surface. In addition, there was a large number of recently dead shells in low spots which had held water. There were some tracks of a large animal and a large number of smaller animal tracks and scats (scats are animal droppings). He also saw some birds which were too far away to identify and observed what he thought were crayfish tunnels near the cypress trees. Mr. Bickner found evidence of dried periphyton widely scattered over the site. Periphyton, an algae which attaches itself to other plants and which in times of inundation, forms sheets across the water connecting one plant to another, is a sign of previous inundation. The other plants on the site were not showing water deprivation stress, and there was no evidence of upland species invasion. All of this leads Mr. Bickner to conclude that the area has plenty of water and this opinion was enhanced by the lushness of the plants' growth. This, along with the high diversity of plant life, indicated to him a healthy ecosystem. To Mr. Bikner, the fact that the area was not currently inundated is not significant. In this particular area there are wet and dry seasons and, even in the dry season such as existed at the time of his visit, the soil was wet. The signs he saw indicated to him there has to be standing water on the site at some time. His visit was in January, which is well within the dry season. As to water quality, Mr. Bickner does not believe that the water quality standards will not be violated. In fact, by the nature of the project, Petitioner has, in Mr. Bickner's opinion, assured that it will be violated. A 20 foot deep pit must, in his opinion, result in low levels of dissolved oxygen below standards. Any water below seven foot in depth has little dissolved oxygen. Most dissolved oxygen is in the surface water, and there is little exchange between deep and surface waters. As a result, he concludes that the groundwater has low dissolved oxygen, a fact confirmed by Mr. Missimer. Dissolved oxygen is the only source of oxygen for fish and aquatic animals. Without dissolved oxygen, the fish die. There are currently no fish on the property. Mr. Bickner was also concerned with the biochemical oxygen demand which would further reduce the oxygen levels in the water. He was further concerned with the hydrogen sulfide levels coming from deterioration of plant material in the bottom of the pit, and iron which he found to be already in the groundwater. Mr. Bickner contends that during construction of the pit petro- chemicals will be introduced into the water, and that during the construction period the on-site water will have increased turbidity which will most likely be transmitted off-site as the pit is de-watered. There are management procedures which can reduce the risk, but none can avoid it entirely. Mr. Bickner is satisfied that the water quality standards will not be met. It is so found. Mr. Bickner also evaluated the property from the public interest standpoint, and in that regard he is satisfied there is a substantial potential for damage to adjacent properties by de-watering. Based on his experience and observation of other projects, he is satisfied there is no way to keep people employed on the site from using adjacent property for parking and vehicle maintenance. The witness believes that the 56 acres of habitat removed by the lake, and the remaining acres, which will be replanted, will be permanently impacted. While he admits that the property as it currently exists, may not be a prime habitat for the panther, there is some evidence which indicates panthers do cross it. He is concerned that the applicants submission here does not sufficiently answer all the questions as to impact on the public interest. The mechanics of the maintenance yard, soil storage and other potential areas of trauma are not explained satisfactorily, and Mr. Bickner does not see how all that is proposed can fit on the site. As a result, in his opinion, there must be some off-site impact. As to cumulative impact, since the valuable rock does not lie only under Petitioner's property, owners of the surrounding property may want to mine their properties as Petitioner proposes to do. If that happens, Mr. Bickner cannot explain how the Department can deny these subsequent applications. If the current application is permitted, taken together with the others, there would be a serious effect on the panther population. This opinion is not supported by evidence, however. If the public interest test is the only basis for disqualification of the project, (here the water quality test is also not met) a permit can still be granted if the applicant agrees to take appropriate mitigation steps at the site. Mr. Bickner is of the opinion that the applicant's mitigation plan to create the 100 foot wide shelf around the lake is not the same type of system which currently exists, will not fulfill the same function as the present property, and is not sufficiently large to replace what is being lost. One basis for granting the variance suggested by the Petitioner was the public interest, (the material was to be used for a public road), and the other was that there was no alternative way to get the material. While it is possible the rock would be used for public road, Mr. Bickner was concerned no assurances were given by the Petitioner that it would be. No contract has been signed yet, and Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that the letter from the Department of Transportation, indicating the rock there would suit its purpose, is sufficient indication that a contract would be signed. There is a possibility of making the pit shallower, which would permit the dissolved oxygen content of the lake water to meet state standards, but even if that problem were solved, Mr. Bickner is not satisfied that Petitioner has met the public interest test. Respondent has granted three permits and a variance to the Department of Transportation to build a portion of I-75 across Alligator Alley in Collier County. These permits are for the dredging of canals parallel to the roadway and to develop a borrow lake of 73.1 acres to be excavated to a depth of from 6 to 9.7 feet. The variance in question applies to all three projects and relates to the dissolved oxygen level. The DOT variance was applied for on the basis that no practical means for avoidance of the pollution existed. The Department of Transportation did not request a variance for BOD or for toxic and deleterious substances or iron. Mr. Bickner, admitted that these permitted projects would possibly have the same problem of oils and greases as he foresees with Petitioner's project. Nonetheless, he concludes that Petitioner's project should not be permitted, even though the Alligator Alley canals are already below standards, because to do so would contribute to a currently existing violation. Mr. James Beever, an Environmental Specialist with the Department of, Environmental Regulation, visited the site on several occasions, both on the ground and from the air. He observed much of the same flora and fauna observed by the other visitors who testified in this case and took color photographs of the area which portray the character of the property. All of the plants he discovered on the site are on the DER jurisdictional list and, on at least one occasion, from the air, he saw standing water on the site. In his opinion, the property is a fresh water wet prairie system which is admittedly drier than it should be. The plants he saw on the site indicate the jurisdiction of DER if there is a connection to other waters of the state, and in Mr. Beever's opinion, there is connection through the flow of sheet water south from the site to the I-75 (Alligator Alley) canal; then, east to the 8 Mile Canal; then south to the Fuqua Union Canal which empties southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. In his opinion, therefore, this is definitely jurisdictional land, and it is so found. The site supports an underground system of roots as well as the upper portion of the, plants existing thereon. He observed periphyton and many other animal tracks and scats. He also saw signs of regular inundation such as numerous snail shells, and he is satisfied there is no indication of a change in the area from the wetlands to an upland area. Admittedly, the area has been dry for a while. Even after Hurricane Floyd in 1987, there was no standing water. The site is, in his opinion, definitely productive, however. The vegetation existing thereon stabilizes the soil and provides food for snails, insects and crayfish which are on the bottom of the foodchain for other life forms on the property. The grasses provide a habitat for animals such as cotton rats, roosts for birds, pollen for insects, all which, themselves, become food for the larger animals. This wetland is a part of a large wetland prairie system and part of the Fuqua Union drainage basin, and acts as a filter for the water system for the area. According to Mr. Beever, most borrow pits like this are located on uplands which then provide rain water lakes. The instant pit, however, is in a wetlands area and if built, he believes, will engender violations during the mining operation. Groundwater coming in will contain iron and hydrogen sulfide which will combine with the dissolved oxygen in the water and further deplete the already low oxygen levels. All of this will constitute a violation of the rules regarding waters of the state since the waters within the pit would fall within that category. Mr. Beever is also concerned with the `bridge over the 8 Mile Canal and the turbidity connected with its construction and removal. In substance, Mr. Beever is convinced that construction of the project will create violations of the water quality standards for the area. As to the public interest, the wetlands character of the site will be completely lost. The vegetation will be removed, and the animals utilizing it will either leave or be destroyed. After, construction, some natural healing will occur, but a long-term maintenance program will be required to provide even different functions for the land than those which currently exist. In that regard, Mr. Beever is convinced that the applicant's proposed restoration plan is not acceptable. It will not replace the lost functions of the site; it will replace the species removed with a different ecosystem; it will provide a habitat for different species of animals and birds; it will adversely affect the shoaling and erosion in the lake itself (this is found to be without merit); it will have some adverse effect on the property of others; and will have an adverse cumulative impact on the area. The habitat will not be used any more by endangered species such as the wood stork and the panther. Even assuming, arguendo, the plans were suitable, in Mr. Beever's opinion, the project would not work here because of the lack of information on what the actual water level of the lake will be. The plant species proposed may not remain because of possible changes in water level in the lake. In addition, the marl berms will dry out over the three years of their life while the pit is being worked, and form a location for a lot of invasive upland plants. Much of Mr. Beever's concern is shared by Mr. Barnett, of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, who indicated that birds now frequently use the area for nesting and feeding because of its wetlands character. Endangered species such as the Florida panther cross it from time to time as does the Florida black bear. Human encroachment reduces the panther's territory and reduces the area for forage of deer, which are the principal food of the panther. The bigger issue, however, is the cumulative impact. The 80 acres is not so important by itself, but to permit its removal would set a precedent for future encroachment by others. Mr. Barnett's experience is that restoration plans are quite often not successful. Even the successful ones, however, replace the removed system with a different system, and the species which now use the property would find it much less desirable as changed. Specifically, the bear, the deer, and the panther would find it unusable as proposed. At the present time, the deer spend their days in the pines forest to the north of the property, coming out onto the area, in question only at night to feed. It is during the night that the panther stalks. As presently constituted, this property is of no benefit to the wood stork or the red cockaded woodpecker. The Cape Sable sparrow could use it but does not. The development of Golden Gate Estates to the north and east and south of the property has a two pronged effect on the area in question. The southern portion of Golden Gate Estates has been abandoned, but the central and northern portions will be developed. On the one hand, it is likely that the increased population to the north and east will make the Petitioner's property less desirable and make access to it more difficult for the wildlife currently utilizing it. On the other hand, removal of the northern and central portions of Golden Gate from usable area for the panther and other species make it more important that Petitioner's area, which Barnett claims is not likely to be developed, remain as an animal habitat to offset the encroachment of the development area. There is no evidence to support this prediction of non- development, however. History tends to indicate otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be issued a dredge and fill permit as requested and a variance to the state water quality standards as identified in the request. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1469 AND 87-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. 3 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Accepted. 21 - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Not a Finding of Fact. 25 - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for finding it is likely that more wildlife will use the site after construction. Rejected as speculation. 29 - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36 - 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42. Accepted. 43 - 44. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted and incorporated-herein. 22 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. Rejected as contra to evidence presented. 37 - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 - 43. Rejected. 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45 - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48 - 60. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. Accepted in part - (temporary). Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Routa, Esquire ROBERTS, EGAN & ROUTA, P.A. 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact As planned, Phase I of Foxwood Lake Estates will consist of 300 mobile homes, which would require treatment of up to 45,000 gallons of sewage per day. The proposed sewage treatment plant would have a capacity of 46,000 gallons per day and would be capable of expansion. It would discharge treated, chlorinated water into a completely clay-lined polishing pond that has been designed for the whole of Foxwood Lake Estates at build-out; capacity of the polishing pond would be three times the capacity necessary for Phase I by itself. From the polishing pond, water is to flow into one or both of two evaporation-percolation ponds, either of which would be big enough for all the sewage expected from Phase I. The sides of these ponds would be lined with clay and a clay plug would constitute the core of the dike on the downslope side of each pond. According to the uncontroverted evidence, effluent leaving the treatment plant for the polishing pond would have been effectively treated by the latest technology and would already have been sufficiently purified to meet the applicable DER water quality requirements. The applicant proposes to dig the triangular polishing pond in the northwest corner of the Foxwood Lake Estates property, some 400 feet east of the western property line. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie adjacent to the polishing pond along an axis running northwest to southeast. Their bottoms would be at an elevation of 164.5 feet above mean sea level and they are designed to be three feet deep. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie some 300 feet east of the western property line at their northerly end and some 400 feet east of the western property line at their southerly end. A berm eight feet wide along the northern edge of the northern evaporation-percolation pond would be 50 feet from the northern boundary of the applicant's property. Forrest Sawyer owns the property directly north of the site proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds. He has a house within 210 feet of the proposed sewage treatment complex, a well by his house, and another well some 300 feet away next to a barn. Two or three acres in the southwest corner of the Sawyer property are downhill from the site proposed for the ponds. This low area, which extends onto the applicant's property, is extremely wet in times of normal rainfall. Together with his brother and his sister, Charles C. Krug owns 40 acres abutting the applicant's property to the west; their father acquired the property in 1926. They have a shallow well some 100 feet from the applicant's western property boundary, and farm part of the hill that slopes downward southwesterly from high ground on the applicant's property. Sweetgum and bayhead trees in the area are also a money crop. Charles C. Krug, whose chief source of income is from his work as an employee of the telephone company, remembers water emerging from this sloping ground in wet weather. Borings were done in two places near the site proposed for the ponds. An augur boring to a depth of six feet did not hit water. The other soil boring revealed that the water table was 8.8 feet below the ground at that point. The topsoil in the vicinity is a fine, dark gray sand about six inches deep. Below the topsoil lies a layer of fine, yellow-tan sand about 30 inches thick. A layer of coarser sand about a foot thick lies underneath the yellow-tan sand. Beginning four or five feet below the surface, the coarser sand becomes clayey and is mixed with traces of cemented sand. Clayey sand with traces of cemented sand is permeable but water percolates more slowly through this mixture than through the soils above it. The applicant caused a percolation test to be performed in the area proposed for the ponds. A PVC pipe six feet long and eight inches in diameter was driven into the ground to the depth proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds and 50 gallons of water were poured down the pipe. This procedure was repeated on 14 consecutive days except that, after a few days, the pipe took only 36 gallons, which completely drained into the soil overnight. There was some rain during this 14-day period. Extrapolating from the area of the pipe's cross-section, Vincent Pickett, an engineer retained by the applicant, testified that the percolation rate of the soils was on the order of 103 gallons per square foot per day, as compared to the design assumption for the ponds of 1.83 or 1.87 gallons per square foot per day. Water percolating down through the bottoms of the evaporation- percolation ponds would travel in a southwesterly direction until it mixed with the groundwater under the applicant's property. It is unlikely that the ponds would overflow their berms even under hurricane conditions. Under wet conditions, however, the groundwater table may rise so that water crops out of the hillside higher up than normal. The proposed placement of the ponds makes such outcropping more likely, but it is impossible to quantify this enhanced likelihood in the absence of more precise information about, among other things, the configuration of the groundwater table.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant the application on the conditions specified in its notice of intent to issue the same. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David M. Levin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
