Findings Of Fact The applicant currently operates a 58 slip marina Village at the proposed site, which was constructed under a modified permit from the Department in 1980 by Sunset Realty. Subsequent to that construction, the Petitioner commenced its Marina Village project on uplands adjacent to the existing dock facility and entered into a lease with Sunset Realty to operate the present marina as part of its "Boca Grande Club." The operative portion of the existing marina, that is, where boats are moored and operate, is in water eight feet or greater in depth. The marina provides fuel service at a separate fuel dock as well as electric and telephone service at the individual slips, thus permitting boats using the slips to hook up to on- shore electrical and telephone service. Sewage pump-out equipment is available at the fuel dock and a portable sewage pumping facility is available to be moved to each slip as necessary. Boca Grande Club employs a full time dock master who lives aboard a boat at the existing facility. The facility presently generally serves larger craft, that is, boats generally larger than 25 feet in length and serves some vessels in excess of 60 feet in length. The marina village portion of Boca Grande Club is a condominium, residential development, which is nearly completed and will consist of 48 residential units. A second portion of the Boca Grande Club is located on the Gulf of Mexico some 2,000 feet away from the marina village. The entire project employs slightly more than 100 people. The Petitioner contends that the existing marina of 58 slips is not sufficient to provide adequate dock space for the residents of the development, as well as members of Boca Grande Club. It also contends that the existing dock elevations are such as to make access from small boats to the dock difficult. The number of residents or club members requiring boat slips was not established, nor was it shown that efforts to modify existing dock elevations have been attempted unsuccessfully. In any event, the Petitioner applied to the Department on February 15, 1985, to construct the approximate 3450 square feet of additional dock facility. This would include a "T" shaped structure with an access ramp or walkway extending approximately 189 feet toward the existing channel from the shore. The waterward "T" portion will be 237 feet ~n length. Additionally,. an "L" shaped structure with two sections, each approximately 75 feet in length, would be constructed which would accommodate six boat slips. The "T" shaped dock will accommodate 19 boat slips at its waterward end. The docks proposed will contain ten 3' X 15' finger piers with regard to the "T" shaped dock and two 3' X 15' finger piers attached to the "L" shaped dock. The applicant would install 42 mooring pilings in the bottom of Gasparilla Sound for the mooring of boats using the docks. Thus, the applicant proposes the addition of approximately 25 boat slips with the proposed docks, all of which will be located within Gasparilla Sound, in the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This is a Class II water body pursuant to Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and has also been designated an outstanding Florida water, pursuant to Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The docking facility will be located in an area vegetated by sea grass, including turtle grass and associated algae. The access ramp for the "T" dock would be through a mangrove fringe including red, white and black mangroves. The Department's appraisal recommended denial of the application unless certain modifications to the "T" shaped dock are accomplished, including omitting the "T" shaped docking structure or relocating it to an area without grass beds; that the pilings should be driven into place rather than placed in augured holes; that turbidity screens should be installed and staked around the proposed piling site and that no boats over 25 feet in length or equipped with heads or toilets should be allowed to moor at the docking facility, nor should boats be permitted with people living aboard them. On September 5, 1985, the Respondent issued its Intent to Deny indicating that the project was expected to violate water quality standards and that the construction of the dock and the presence of the moored boats attendant to use of the dock would lower existing water quality in terms of turbidity, biological integrity, bacteriological quality, especially as to fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria and based upon the DER's position that the "T" shaped dock would not clearly be in the public interest in several respects. The Department has no objection and proposes to issue a permit for construction of the smaller, "L" shaped dock. In response to the Intent to Deny, the Petitioner resurveyed the seagrasses in the area and located a site where the water depths sloped to deeper water and seagrasses were sparser. It modified its application, moving the waterward extension of the dock over the deeper water in the less dense seagrasses, but could not move the dock to a location to avoid seagrass since to do so would not allow maneuvering room for larger boats utilizing the existing dock. The applicant agreed to the other suggestions of modification by the Respondent. Thus, the applicant subsequently modified the application to include "bow-in" mooring of boats so as to place boat propellors over the deepest possible waters at the mooring site, as well as raising the central portion of the access ramp leading waterward from the shore, to provide for greater light penetration and less shading of seagrasses, as well as narrowing the dock to five feet in width where it passes through the mangrove fringe, so as to limit alteration of the mangroves at the site to only three trees. The Department continues to take the position that the permit should be denied, however, on the basis that the construction of the dock and the presence of the boats attendant to the dock will lower existing water quality in terms of the above particulars and based upon the DER's evaluation that the "T" shaped dock will not clearly be in the public interest. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY The Petitioner tendered C. W. Sheffield, professional engineer, and Dr. Martin Roessler as experts in the field of water quality and they were accepted without objection. The respondent tendered the expert testimony of Mr. Doug Frye and William Porter, respectively a dredge and fill specialist and supervisor and an environmental specialist with the Shellfish Monitoring Program for the Department of Natural Resources, who were accepted as expert witnesses in the areas of water quality and, with regard to Mr. Porter, the impacts of water quality on shellfish. It was thus established that the ambient water quality in the cove which contains the present marina and where the proposed docking facilities would be is generally good. The water meets all relevant State regulatory standards with the exception of fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters. In that regard, repetitive samples have shown violations of the fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters on a number of occasions. The data relied upon concerning fecal coliform organism levels at the project site was collected and analyzed over approximately a one year period during which time the samples were shown to contain fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria in violative concentrations a number of times. Marinas are known discharge sources for fecal coliform organisms. This is especially true of moored boats in marinas which often have toilets or heads which are illegally flushed into the State waters within the marina. The presence of moored boats with heads are known discharge sources of fecal coliform organisms and the boats utilizing the present marina and the proposed project do, and likely will, have toilets on board, which can be improperly discharged into the waters of the marina. This marina has been established to be a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms in violation of the relevant standard for Class II waters of the State. There presently exists relatively high levels of fecal coliform organisms ranging up to 50 organisms per 100 milliliters of water in the area of the existing marina. This level of concentration exceeds the regulatory standard for fecal coliform bacteria in the Class II water quality rules. Although Mr. Porter discussed the possibility that high levels of coliform bacteria could be caused by birds or animals depositing fecal material in the water, he established that the likely source of elevated levels of this bacteria was improper operation of heads aboard boats, as pointed out by the fact that samples taken in other areas of the Gasparilla Sound away from marina sites do not exhibit the high coliform levels found on repeated occasions at the subject site. Thus, it has been established that the ambient water quality is within State standards for all parameters with the exception of fecal and total coliform bacteria for Class II waters. The Petitioner contends that Class III water standards are appropriately applied herein inasmuch as the Department placed the Class III standards rather than the Class II standards at issue in its Intent to Deny, albeit mistakenly. There is no question, however, that there are Class II waters of the State involved at this site and the subject area is within the aquatic preserve and outstanding Florida waters. The Petitioner is charged with knowledge of this inasmuch as the aquatic preserve boundaries are delimited in the Department's above-cited, published rule. In preparing and processing its application and electing to proceed with this project, the Petitioner is charged with knowledge that these are Class II waters and that the water quality criteria and considerations applicable to Class II outstanding Florida waters are the appropriate parameters with which it must comply. In any event, this is a de novo proceeding and the Department's initial position with regard to this application is not binding in favor of or to the prejudice of any party to the Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes proceeding. IMPACT ON BENTHIC COMMUNITY ·9. There is a moderate stand of seagrass at the proposed site of the "T" portion of the dock or waterward end of the dock, with dense seagrass beds existing toward the shore, over which the narrower walkway portion of the dock will traverse. Seagrass beds are an especially productive marine community which contribute greatly to the biological diversity in surrounding waters because of their important function in the marine food chain. That function is involved with the seagrasses production of detrital matter consisting of seeds and vegetative material which marine organisms feed upon and upon which organisms larger fish, including commercial and sport fish species, feed upon. Potential adverse impacts caused by a project of this type on the Benthic Community at the project site and especially the seagrass beds involve the potential shading of seagrasses caused by the location of the dock over them, as well as the mooring of boats over them which shading retards or eliminates photosynthesis, which ultimately can kill the seagrass and thus reduce marine productivity in the area. The concentration of boats at such a mooring site as the end of this "T" dock will concentrate the effects of prop scouring, washing and prop dredging, which will have a destructive effect on seagrasses as well as the settling out of sediment from propellor wash or disturbance of the bottom on the seagrasses which can ultimately smother them as well as other marine life forms. In discussing these considerations, it should be pointed out that the "T" portion of the dock would be oriented in a general north-south direction which causes the shadow of the dock to move rapidly as the sun passes overhead in a general east to west direction. This would tend to minimize the effect of shading on the seagrass of the dock itself, particularly with regard to the approach ramp portion of the dock which is relatively narrow. That portion of the dock extending toward the shore runs in an east to west direction and would not exhibit the same rapidly moving shadow, but the central portion of the approach walkway has been elevated to such an extent that light reaching under the dock from both sides will be sufficient to allow photosynthesis of the seagrasses under the dock, although not for as long a period of the day nor at the same rate as would be the case if the dock were not present. The Petitioner asserts that its voluntary relocation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock from an area of dense sea grass to a moderately populated sea grass bed plus the proposed bow-in mooring of boats so as to alleviate propellor damage to the seagrass, together with its view concerning the prevailing water depth at the end of the dock, will serve to prevent damage to the seagrass at the end of the "T" dock where the boats will be moored. It has been shown, however, that the mooring of boats whether bow-in or otherwise will still create a significant amount of shading of the bottom which, together with the shading caused by the "T" dock as well as the associated finger piers will retard or prevent photosynthesis to some extent, especially where boats are moored for days at a time without moving. This will significantly reduce the marine productivity attributable to the seagrass by retarding its natural function or, in some cases, killing it with the resultant loss of the detrital production as well as carbon production, the former being crucial to the proper functioning of the marine food chain in the area. If the seagrass is damaged or extinguished by the shading effect, prop scouring and washing, and/or settlement of turbidity on the seagrass, or a combination of these factors, not only will its productivity be lost, but the biological diversity of marine life in the area will be reduced as it relates to those vertebrate and invertebrate marine animals which depend on seagrass as a food source either directly or indirectly. Dr. Roessler, for the Petitioner, opined that the attached biological communities or "fouling" organisms such as barnacles which would form on the dock pilings, if they were installed, would provide habitat for marine life and invertebrates and thus enhance the biological diversity of the area. These fouling organisms which attach to pilings, however, represent a very narrow portion of the potential marine biological diversity of life forms in an area such as this. Their advent on the pilings, should the pilings be installed, would not mitigate for the loss of important marine habitat and resultant species diversity that elimination of this portion of the seagrass beds would pose. Thus, reasonable assurances have not been established that significant adverse impact to the Benthic Community in the form of damage or elimination of the seagrass beds and their dependent biota will not occur due to shading and propellor scouring, dredging and washing occasioned by the installation of the docking facility. Respondent's expert witnesses Sheftal, Barth, and Dentzau uniformly expressed a concern for propellor scarring, dredging and prop washing of the seagrass beds caused by an improper operation of boats in the project area where water is too shallow over the grass beds to protect them from the resultant propellor damage. In this regard, the Petitioner's own experiments with actual boats indicated that approximately one to 1 1/2 feet of water will remain between the bottom of the sound and the boat propellors at the end of the "T" dock for the general type and size of boats which will use the dock, even assuming that the boats are moored bow inward, thus taking maximum advantage of the deepest water possible under the propellors when a boat engine is started. Respondent's witness Dentzau performed a test with a 21 foot boat with an approximately 100 horsepower outboard engine running it in both forward and reverse at the "T" end of the dock. He was able to readily generate a "plume" of turbidity consisting of sand and other bottom material suspended in the water by the scouring action of the propellor. Although it was demonstrated for water quality parameter considerations that this turbidity plume did not violate the water quality standards for turbidity, it obviously shows that over time the turbidity suspended by boat propellors will settle on the seagrasses and other bottom dwelling biota to their detriment and, more immediately important, demonstrates that prop washing and scouring will occur by boats even if moored bow-in at the presently proposed site of the "T" shaped portion of the dock. The Petitioner proposes by the configuration of its "L" shaped dock in conjunction with the IT" shaped dock, as well as with buoy lines, to keep boat traffic away from the dense grass beds surrounding the proposed dock site and over which the walkway will extend. The Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent grass beds. It has not been demonstrated, however, what steps can be taken to effectively prevent boats from approaching the side of the proposed dock around the ends of the buoy lines and over the dense grass beds toward prohibitively shallow water where prop scouring and scarring will occur. Further, although the Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent dense grass beds, the likelihood of propellor damage to the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the "T" dock has been exacerbated by the concentration of boat traffic which will result by installation of that dock, over waters at the mooring site which are of insufficient depth to protect the grass bed at that location from scouring and washing from boat propellors. In view of these reasons, significant adverse impacts to the Benthic Communities and especially to the grass beds themselves will result by installation of the docking facility at the site proposed, primarily because of insufficient water depth for safe operation of boats in relation to the well-being of the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the dock and because of the shading which will result by installation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock in conjunction with the boats to be moored to it and the finger piers between the boat slips attached to it. WATER QUALITY The Respondent, through its water quality expert witness, Doug Frye, expressed the concern that the proposed project would violate Rule 17-3.051, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the State's waters be free from pollutants above a certain level measured by various accepted and codified scientific methods of measurement. In this regard, the primary concern of the Department is bacteriological quality as well as turbidity resulting from boat operation. The turbidity standards contained in the above Rule provides that State waters not exceed 29 nephelometric turbidity units above the natural background level. The Respondent contends that this level will be exceeded as a result of operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock. The Petitioner, however, presented a soils analysis and silt settling study which showed that bottom materials in the area involved consist of sand, with some finely pulverized shell and that this material settles very rapidly after being disturbed with little silt remaining in suspension a significant period of time after the disturbance. This is primarily because the level of organics in the bottom substrate is very low at this site. In this connection, the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Sheffield, anchored a 16 foot boat with a 40 horsepower outboard motor in the docking area of the proposed project. He operated the boat at 1,000 RPM for an extended period of time while measuring the resultant turbidity. The results of his measurements showed turbidity to be in the range of 5-11 NTUs. The Respondent's witnesses, however, operated a larger 21 foot boat at the location of the "T" shaped portion of the dock maneuvering it back and forth with a fairly large outboard motor in the 100 horsepower class, which might be presumed to be typical of the boats which will be using the proposed facility. The maneuvering of the boat with the larger engine in this shallow water created a clearly visible plume of turbidity shown by photographs introduced into evidence by the Respondent. In fact, however, although the turbidity plume was clearly visible, the Respondent's own direct measurement of turbidity taken from within the plume immediately after it was generated was 23.8 NTUs, still below the State standards for violations as to turbidity. The existing marina facility has a fuel dock and has adopted a fuel spill contingency plan. There will be no fueling of boats nor fuel kept at the proposed docks. Nevertheless, marinas were established to be a known source of discharge of oils and greases and the presence of more boats utilizing all the dock facilities, especially during fueling and maintenance procedures, will result in additional oils and greases being deposited in the water. Even if there is no fueling facility planned for the proposed docks, the additional boats represented by the 25 additional slips sought to be approved will have to be fueled and likely at the existing facility. This will heighten the risk of fuel, oil and grease spills. In this regard, it must be remembered that the present marina and the proposed docking facilities are in outstanding Florida waters in which no degradation of ambient water quality is permitted. In this context then, the Petitioner/Applicant has, not provided reasonable assurances that pollution levels for oils and greases will not increase as a result of the potential addition of 25 boats to this marina facility. A substantial issue has been raised in this proceeding concerning water quality as it relates to the bacteriological standard. It has been established that this marina is presently a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms which frequently are present in sufficient concentrations so as to violate the standard for that organism for Class II waters. Fecal coliform bacteria are accumulated in the bodies of shellfish. The shellfish themselves are not harmed, but contaminated shellfish can accumulate concentrations of as much as 100 times the ambient fecal coliform bacterial levels present in the waters they inhabit. Fecal coliform bacteria can cause extreme illness in human beings, sometimes even paralysis and death. Fecal coliform bacteria in State waters results from the deposition therein of human or animal waste. The Petitioner maintains a sewage pumpout station located at its fuel dock with a direct connection to its sanitary upland sewer system, as well as a portable sewage pump that can be moved to each boat slip for pumping out of toilets or "heads" on boats. Upland fish cleaning stations will additionally be provided with the proposed docks so as to prevent refuse from fish cleaning activities being deposited into the waters of the cove. The fact remains, however, that there presently exist high levels of fecal coliform organisms in the waters of the cove at the marina site, in the above noted violative concentrations on repetitive occasions. The presence of boats moored in the marina with "heads" aboard are a known discharge source of fecal coliform organisms. The Petitioner proposes to restrict boats using the facility to those boats without marine heads aboard or requiring those with heads to keep them locked or otherwise not discharge them into the waters of the marina. If boats utilizing the marina have toilets aboard, however, there is a substantial likelihood that at some point those toilets will be discharged into the waters of the cove before any of the Petitioner's monitoring personnel are aware of it. The problem is thus one of enforcement. In this regard, it is established that even with the sewage pumpout station and the portable sewage pumpout device, that there are a number of "live-aboard" boats with marine heads in the marina at the present time and customarily. This has caused the above found violations of fecal coliform, Class II water standards. Although the Petitioner proposes to restrict boats at the proposed docking facility to those less than 25 feet in length and to establish a monitoring program by the marina management personnel to assure that the boats with heads only contain heads approved by Coast Guard regulation, reasonable assurances have still not been established that the enforcement plan proposed can be effective in ensuring that no marine heads or other sources of coliform bacteria will be discharged into the waters of the cove at the project site. The plan proposed by the Petitioner simply did not ensure that boats having marine heads will not use the marina and that those persons using boats so equipped will not, on some occasions, discharge the heads into the waters of the marina at the project site nor that spills will not result in the sewage pumping-out process. The Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Porter, confirmed that most fishing boats of the open "center console" variety of 25 feet length or less do not contain marine heads, nevertheless, he established that in his experience monitoring marinas of this sort, the restrictions against marine heads of the non-approved variety and the attempted restriction against boats discharging the contents of their heads into the waters of the marina cannot be effectively enforced nor was it established that fishing boats without marine heads will be the only type of boat to use the proposed docking facilities. Accordingly, the waters of the cove at the marina site and project site are in frequent violation of the fecal coliform and total coliform parameter for Class II waters and reasonable assurances have not been provided that the fecal coliform bacterial levels will not increase as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed facility with its attendant boats. Because of the likelihood of shellfish contamination by fecal coliform bacterial levels which will likely increase if the proposed project is constructed and operated, together with the loss of marine habitat and productivity posed by the harm likely to result to the seagrass beds in the vicinity of the proposed facility due to attendant boat operation, it has been shown that the water quality parameter for biological integrity in these Outstanding Florida Waters will likely be degraded. The "Diversity Index" of marine microinvertebrates in the area of the affected seagrass beds will likely be reduced below 75 percent of background levels. Therefore, in the context discussed above, the proposed construction and operation of the 25-slip marina facility with the "T" dock will lower ambient water quality in these outstanding Florida waters and will result in violations of State water quality standards for Class II waters in the above particulars. SHELLFISH HARVESTING Mr. William Porter of the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation established that the cove where the project would be located is closed to the taking of shellfish as a result of the contamination or potential for contamination of shellfish by coliform bacteria contained in fecal material. His Department's water quality sampling confirmed the elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the cove on repetitive occasions. This elevated level of coliform organisms was shown to result from improper operation of marine toilets upon vessels using the marina at the present time. Because of the potential for contamination from vessels discharging fecal material, Mr. Porter established that the Department would likely close an area 50 percent larger than the present shellfish harvest closure area as a result of a 50 percent increase in the number of boats capable of using the marina if the proposed project is built. Mr. Porter acknowledges that if it could be assured that boats using the marina did not contain heads, the increased area of closure might be lessened after this project were built. He also established as pointed out above that such restrictions on boats containing heads from using the proposed boat slip is very difficult to enforce. Even with the present central sewage pumpout facilities and portable pumpout equipment at the existing marina, the marina still has failed to comply with fecal and total coliform standards for Class II waters on a repetitive basis. The management of the present marina has allowed live-aboard boats at the marina even though it has posted warning signs against boat owners discharging toilets in the cove waters. Mr. Porter also acknowledged that the Boca Grande North Marina, owned by Gasparilla Pass, Inc., was recently permitted by the DER and constructed and has not yet resulted in the Department's closing an additional area to the taking of shellfish. The area the marina is situated in, however, is only "conditionally approved" for the taking of shellfish, meaning that it is subject to closer monitoring by the DNR with a view toward the possible necessity of closing waters in the area of that marina. It was not established, however, how the fecal coliform or total coliform levels in the waters adjacent to that marina compare to the existing marina or the site of the proposed docking facilities at the existing marina, nor what conditions might prevail which would render that other marina a comparable site to -be used as a relevant demonstration of what conditions might be expected at the present marina if the proposed project were built and operated. Thus it has been shown that even though the Petitioner proposes limiting the size of boats at the proposed facility and closely inspecting and regulating any marine heads on boats using the facility to make sure they comply with Coast Guard regulations, it has not been demonstrated that the additional deposition of fecal coliform bacteria in the waters often the cove will be adequately prevented by the proposed enforcement measures. It is thus reasonably likely that the construction of the proposed project will lead to the closing of an additional area of water which is presently approved for shellfish harvesting. The closure of shellfish harvesting in waters is contrary to the public interest in terms of recreational values, fishing and marine productivity and others of the seven public interest criteria quoted below. Further, the contamination of shellfish, which can cause severe illness or even death in human beings, is clearly contrary to the public interest and there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish contamination is already occurring in the area due to the characteristic of shellfish by which they accumulate or store fecal coliform organisms to reach injurious levels for human consumption even though the shellfish themselves appear to be healthy. The area of the proposed project is extensively used for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting at the present time, outside the immediate closed waters of the marina within the cove. PUBLIC INTEREST Section 403.918(2) (a) (1-7) requires that the Petitioner provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest. The public interest considerations of those seven criteria concern whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or property of others: whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats; whether it will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the project vicinity; whether it will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the effect on the current condition and relative value of functions reformed by areas affected by the project. Although Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, related that the attached fouling communities, such as barnacles, which would form on the proposed docks and pilings would increase the diversity of marine habitat available, that will not offset the loss of marine habitat occasioned by the increasingly detrimental effect imposed by the project and the operation of it on the seagrass beds, in the manner discussed above. The fouling communities expected by Dr. Roessler to occur on the pilings to be installed, will not provide, nor replace the value of, the detritus (seeds and leaves) produced by the seagrass which would be lost, which is an important food source for marine organisms in the upper portion of the food chain in the area, some of which organisms include fish and have a high recreational value and commercial value. The importance of detrital production by the seagrass beds outweigh the value of the addition of the fouling communities on the pilings. In fact, the total diversity of marine species actually might decline even though the fouling organisms would be added with the installation of the pilings, once the harmful effects on the seagrass beds begin to occur after installation and operation of the proposed facility and over the life of the marina. Thus, in this regard, the project is contrary to the public interest and certainly not clearly in the public interest. Additionally, there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish may be contaminated which, in turn, will have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare. The harvesting of shellfish has a substantial recreational and commercial value and is an important aspect of the marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The heightened coliform bacteria production caused by the resultant expansion of the marina will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity and will degrade the current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the marine habitat in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Finally, there is no question that the project will be of a permanent nature. The various detrimental effects on the public interest consideration found herein are rendered more critical by the fact that there is no truly redeeming public purpose or use for this project. This will be essentially a private docking facility designed to serve the residents of the applicant's attendant real estate development. The upland development is a condominium development and the slips will be owned by the condominium owners and not open to the general public, although the Petitioner did make vague reference to an idea that some slips might be rented to members of the public. This was not established to be the case and, in any event, the primary purpose of the boat slips is to enhance the desirability of the upland development. Although the Petitioner emphasizes that the advent of the additional slips might help attract as much as $1,000,000 additional revenue to the Boca Grande area by assisting the applicant in hosting the Annual Tarpon Release Fishing Tournament, it is also true that any development in a coastal area will likely represent some economic benefit to that area, but there is also a substantial economic and recreational benefit to maintaining the outstanding Florida waters involved in an undegraded condition and maintaining the present Class II, approved shellfish harvesting area unimpaired. Thus, although the proposed docks might be used for sponsorship of the subject fishing tournament and it can be said that that would enhance fishing and recreational value to some extent, it was not established that the tournament will not occur and that the extra revenue and enhancement of fishing and recreational value it will generate will not occur in the Boca Grande area anyway. The potential detrimental effects of the proposed project, delineated above, will also decrease fishing and recreational value over many years and for the life of this project in terms of harm to the marine habitat occasioned by the constant deposition of oils, greases and fuel and coliform bacteria in the Class II waters involved, as well as the other detrimental aspects of the project discussed above. It has not been established that the economic benefits of the fishing tournament and the addition of the boat slips will not occur but for the installation of this proposed docking facility. Although it may help relieve a shortage of marina slips in the area, it was not shown that this is the only alternative to relief of that shortage. ALTERATION OF MANGROVES The original site for the access ramp or walkway to the "T" shaped portion of the dock was selected through an on site inspection conducted in part by Respondent's witness, Andrew Barth. The mangrove area is less dense at the site of the walkway's penetration of the mangrove belt than surrounding mangrove areas. Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, has participated in many studies involving mangroves in South Florida. He identified each tree within the proposed dock pathway. Through narrowing of the dock walkway to five feet and the relocation agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Barth, it has been established that only three mangrove trees will be removed by the construction of the dock. Thus, there will be no substantial alteration or degradation of the mangrove fringe area at the project site. DOCK CONSTRUCTION Mr. C. W. Sheffield was accepted as an expert witness in the field of marine engineering. He established that the pilings will be installed using a 6 to 8 inch chisel point driven into the bottom of the sound with an air hammer. There will be no augering or other means of excavation used which would generate a substantial amount of turbidity. The air hammer will result in compaction of sediments by forces radiating out from the piling as it is driven, with the counteracting sheer force caused by the piling installation causing a slight bulging in the bottom around each piling, but nothing more. There will be no significant movement of sediment in the water column. The construction of the dock will take place moving from the land waterward, utilizing equipment mounted on the dock. Thus, construction barges will not be required to come into the shallow grass bed area with the potential for its damage. Small barges would be used in the deeper waterward portions of the project to install the mooring pilings off-shore from the end of the "T" dock. Turbidity curtains will be used during all construction, surrounding all phases of the construction work. In Mr. Sheffield's experience, such measures have resulted in no violation of the State turbidity standards at other similar projects, and are not likely to with this one. CUMULATIVE IMPACT A number of permits have been issued by the Department for docking facilities to the north of this proposal and other facilities are already in existence. Dr. Roessler opined that the geographic location of these, as well as that of this project, in light of the numerous inlets and high degree of tidal flushing and exchange through the inlets, will not result in any adverse cumulative impact occasioned by the addition of the proposed dock with 25 slips to those already existing in the Sound. It is noteworthy that, with regard to the potential this project poses for damage to the seagrass beds and for heightened production of fecal coliform bacteria, with the environmental damage attendant thereto, no proof was offered by either party concerning those considerations or effects to the extent that they might or might not exist at other marinas or docking facilities in the Gasparilla Sound area. There has been no proof to establish any cumulative impact.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject permit application, except for that portion seeking authorization for the "L" shaped dock and six boat slips attendant thereto, which should be granted with the agreed-upon conditions and restrictions contained in the above Findings of Fact. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are numbered below in the order in which they were presented (unnumbered) by the Petitioner. 1-6. Accepted Accepted, excepted for the last two sentences which are immaterial Accepted. Accepted, except as to the proffered material import of the last sentence. Accepted, except the first sentence which is not in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, except as to the last three sentences which are not supported by preponderant evidence 12-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as not being in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not as dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, except as to the last sentence which is rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except as to the third and last sentences which are rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except for the third and last two sentences which are rejected as to their purported import in the resolution of the material issues presented and as being not in accordance with the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not as dispositive of the jurisdictional issue concerning "dredging and filling" for the reasons found in the Recommended Order. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-18. Accepted 19. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented. 20-25. Accepted. Rejected as not being a complete finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted, except as to the issue of water dept which would actually be less at the critical location involved. Accepted. Accepted, but not material. 31-31. Accepted. 35. Accepted, but not truly material in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1386 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Stephen Fox, Director Division of Environmental Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Respondent is the successor agency to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and has permitting authority over the subject project pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's file number for this matter is 311765419. Petitioner, Alden Pond, Inc., is a subsidiary of First Union National Bank of Florida and is the successor in interest to Orchid Island Associates. John C. Kurtz is the designated property manager for this project and appeared at the formal hearing as Alden Pond's authorized agent. THE PROPERTY AND THE VICINITY Petitioner has record title to all of Government Lot 9 in Section 15, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the Jungle Trail Road right of way, and all of Government Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the road right of way for State Road 510. Petitioner does not own land below the mean high water line of the Indian River, which forms the western boundary of the property. Much of the property, approximately the northern half, abuts a part of the Indian River that has been leased by the State of Florida to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first national wildlife refuge established in the United States and has been declared to be a water of international importance. Upland of the proposed project is a golf course and residential development. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is part of the Intercoastal Waterway system, is navigable by large vessels, and is an important travel corridor for manatees. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is a healthy estuarine system. Minor deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards have been recorded. These minor deviations are typical and represent natural conditions for this type of system. Water quality sampling from March 1994 yielded no samples in which deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards were observed. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT On February 21, 1990, Orchid Island Associates submitted to the Respondent an application for a wetland resource permit to construct a boat basin and canal on its property adjacent to the Indian River. The artificial waterway that Petitioner proposes to construct on its property will, for ease of reference, also be referred to as a canal. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the hydrological channel. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the south terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the access channel. The original project involved, among other features, a canal approximately 6,400 feet long, the dredging of the hydrological channel and the access channel, the construction of 44 docks to be located along the eastern side of the canal, and the dredging of an area adjacent to the canal for a 58 slip marina. The width of the canal was to range between 100 and 200 feet. The original project required the filling of 4.72 acres of wetlands and the dredging of 8.81 acres of wetlands for a direct impact on 13.53 acres of wetlands. On January 15, 1991, Respondent issued a preliminary evaluation letter pertaining to the initial application that contained the following conclusion: "the project cannot be recommended for approval." On September 12, 1991, Respondent issued a Notice of Permit Denial dated September 12, 1991, which stated that the application would be denied. This denial letter did not suggest any revisions that would make the project permittable and represented a strong position by the Respondent that the project as originally proposed should be denied. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial correctly described the project site and the initial proposal as follows: . . . The proposed project is located north of and adjacent to County Road 510, north and east of Wabasso Bridge and adjacent to the eastern shore of the Indian River. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II, Outstanding Florida Waters. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, also an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water, is immediately west of the project site. Historically, the site of the marina and its associated upland development consisted of a wetland adjacent to the Indian River and a large citrus grove. Subsequently, the wetland was surrounded by a dike and impounded for mosquito control purposes. At some point in the past, a borrow pit 1/ was excavated within the landward (eastern) edge of the impounded wetland. Most of the citrus grove has been converted to a residential community associated with a golf course. * * * The proposed project included excavation of a 6,400 linear ft. canal along the upland/wetland edge between the impoundment and the adjacent upland, dredging the existing borrow pit to a depth of -8 ft. NGVD to create a boat basin that will connect it to the excavated canal, construction of 58 boat slips within the excavated boat basin, excavation of two flushing channels through a portion of the impoundment dike and wetlands within the impoundment to connect the excavated channel to the Indian River and a natural lake within the impoundment, excavation of a 700 ft. long access channel to connect the excavated canal to the Intercoastal Waterway through the seagrass beds along the southern boundary of the project site, filling of 4.72 ac. of wetlands at three locations within the impoundment to create uplands, and construction of a boardwalk along the southern edge of the excavated canal through the wetlands in the impoundment to provide access to the marina basin. To mitigate for the loss of wetlands, the applicant proposes to enhance 68 ac. of wetlands within the mosquito impoundment by returning the impoundment berm to grade and implementing a rotary ditching project and open marsh mosquito management to improve the hydrology of the wetlands in the impoundment, planting high marsh species, and donating the enhanced wetlands to the State of Florida for incorporation into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge through a lease to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial provided, in pertinent part, the following reasons for the denial of the project: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: Water quality data for the Indian River adjacent to the project site indicates that the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) standard is not currently being met. The proposed 8 ft. deep canal and marina basin to the Indian River would be expected to result in introduction of additional low D.O. waters into a system which already does not meet the D.O. standard, thereby resulting in further degradation of the water quality in the Indian River. In addition to the D.O. problem, the project would result in water quality degradation due to the pollutant loading of marina related pollutants from the boats docked at the 58 slips that are proposed as part of the project in the marina basin. Additional water quality degradation also may result from boats that are moored at docks that may be constructed at a later date by the owners of the 44 lots adjacent to the canal, pursuant to the exemption in Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. This exemption provides that private docks in artificially constructed waters are exempt from dredge and fill permitting and may be constructed without a permit providing they meet the size criteria listed in the statute and provided they do not impede navigation, affect flood control, or cause water quality violations. The boats in the canal system and boat basin would be a chronic source of pollutants for the life of the facility. The proposed water depths and slip sizes will make the basin accessible for use by large boats which can be expected to have on-board sanitation devices. The hydrographic report submitted by the applicant indicates the proposed waters will flush with a 2.6 hr. duration. Although this flushing rate will prevent water quality pollutants from being concentrated in the waters of the basin, it also will have the effect of transporting boat related pollutants to the Indian River, thereby causing degradation of the Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is within Class II Waters, prohibited for shellfish harvesting, but is adjacent to Class II Waters, approved for shellfish harvesting. Discussion with the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Regulation and Development, indicates that the pollutant loading from the project would probably cause the adjacent waters to be reclassified as "prohibited for shellfish harvesting." The reclassification of the adjacent waters would lower the existing use of the waterbody. Rules 17-302.300(1), (4), , and (6), Florida Administrative Code, state that: Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. * * * Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. As a result of the above cited factors, degradation of water quality is expected. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the degradation of existing water quality in an Outstanding Florida Water and the violation of water quality standards pursuant to Rules 17-312.080(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. Specific State Water Quality Standards in Rules 17-302.500, 17-302.510 and 17-302.550, Florida Administrative Code, affected by the completion of the project include the following: Bacteriological Quality - the median coliform MPN (Most Probable Number) of water shall not exceed seventy (70) per hundred (100) milliliters, and not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples shall exceed a MPN of two hundred and thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters. The fecal coliform bacterial level shall not exceed a median value of 14 MPN per 100 milliliters with not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples exceeding 43 MPN per 100 milliliters. Dissolved Oxygen - the concentration in all waters shall not average less than 5 milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Oils and Greases: Dissolved or emulsified oils and greases shall not exceed 5.0 milligrams per liter. No undissolved oil, or visible oil defined as iridescence, shall be present so as to cause taste or odor, or otherwise interfere with the beneficial use of waters. In addition the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that ambient water quality in the OFW will not be degraded pursuant to Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, pursuant to Rule 17-312.080(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the Department shall deny a permit for dredging or filling in Class II waters which are not approved for shellfish harvesting unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure to protect those waters and waters in the vicinity. The plan or procedure shall detail the measures to be taken to prevent significant damage to the immediate project areas and to adjacent area and shall provide reasonable assurance that the standards for Class II waters will not be violated. In addition to impacts to water quality, the project is expected to adversely affect biological resources. A portion (estimated at between 0.4 and 0.5 ac.) of the access channel alignment is vegetated by seagrasses, the dominant species being Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal weed). Seagrass beds provide important habitat and forage for a variety of wildlife species. The loss of seagrass beds will result in a loss of productivity to the entire system that would be difficult to replace. The 4.72 ac. of wetlands proposed to be filled and the excavation required for the proposed channels (approximately 38 ac.) are productive high marsh and mixed mangrove wetlands which are providing wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. These wetlands have been adversely impacted by the freeze of 1989, but they appear to be recovering well. The proposed mitigation would provide some benefits through exotic removal and increased hydrologic connection to the Indian River. However, these benefits would not be adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed wetland losses for this project. The project site and the adjacent Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge are used for nesting and foraging by a variety of species, including little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) (Species of Special Concern (SSC)--Florida Game and Fresh Water fish Commission (FGFWFC)), reddish egret (E. rufescens) (SSC-FGFWFC), snowy egrets (E. thula) (SSC-FGFWFC), tricolored herons (E. tricolor) (SSC-FGFWFC), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) (SSC-FGFWFC), roseate spoonbills (Ajaja ajaja) (SSC-FGFWFC), least tern (Sterna antillarum) (threatened-FGFWFC), and wood storks (endangered-FGFWFC). The construction of the project and the increased boating activity due to the project would result in the disturbance of those species that use the wetlands in the project area. The Indian River adjacent to the project site is used by the West Indian Manatee (endangered-FGFWFC). The increased boat traffic would increase the chance of manatee deaths due to boat impact. In addition, the excavation of the access channel through the seagrass beds would decrease the available forage for manatees in the project area. For the above reasons, this project is also not clearly in the public interest, as required pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, because it is expected to: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; be permanent in nature; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. On September 12, 1991, the owner and holder of the mortgage on the Orchid Island development (which includes the real property on which the Petitioner hopes to construct the project at issue in this proceeding) instituted foreclosure proceedings. The circuit judge who presided over the foreclosure proceeding soon thereafter appointed an interim receiver to manage the property until a receiver who would manage the property for the duration of the foreclosure proceeding could be appointed. THE PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND FACTS AS TO ESTOPPEL On October 31, 1991, representatives of Orchid Island Associates met with Respondent's staff to discuss this application. Trudie Bell, the Environmental Specialist assigned to supervise this application, and Douglas MacLaughlin, an attorney employed by Respondent, attended the meeting. Those attending the meeting on behalf of Orchid Island Associates included the interim trustee, the attorney for Orchid Island Associates, and Darrell McQueen, who at all times pertinent to this proceeding was the project engineer. Mr. McQueen was upset that the project was going to be denied and wanted to know what could be done to make it a permittable project. In response to Mr. McQueen, Ms. Bell, without making any promises, suggested the following modifications to the project that might make it permittable: moving the canal more upland, elimination of the boat basin/marina, reducing the depth of the artificial waterway, and increasing the width of the littoral zone. On November 11, 1991, the representatives of Orchid Island Associates responded to the Respondent's suggested modifications and agreed to make the modifications. In an effort to design a project that would be acceptable to Respondent, Orchid Island Associates proposed to the Respondent to make certain modifications to the design of the project. Petitioner has agreed to those modifications which include the following: Elimination of the boat basin and associated 58 dock marina and clubhouse, but with the addition of 18 relatively narrow residential lots, each of which would have a dock on the south end of the waterway. 2/ Reduction of the depth of the artificial waterway to -7 feet NGVD from the proposed -8 feet NGVD. Realignment of the artificial waterway as depicted on the sealed drawings submitted to Respondent and dated January 28, 1993. Increasing the width of the littoral zone to be created along the length of the artificial waterway to 40 feet on the west side and 10 feet on the east side. On November 12, 1991, John C. Kurtz was appointed the receiver of the Orchid Island Associates property and remained the receiver until the property was conveyed to Petitioner at a foreclosure sale on July 31, 1993. After it acquired the property, Petitioner employed Mr. Kurtz to manage the subject property. Mr. Kurtz has been active in the project since his appointment as the receiver of the property. On November 21, 1991, Petitioner met with Respondent's staff, including Ms. Bell, to discuss the modifications. At that meeting, the Respondent's staff reacted favorably to the modifications agreed to by Petitioner. Ms. Bell described the revisions as "excellent" and "a great idea" and stated that the project was "a nice project" and that it looked like the project was heading in the right direction. Ms. Bell also represented that the Respondent would grant the Petitioner extensions of time to allow for a formal revision if the project was deemed permittable. Ms. Bell kept her superiors informed of the status of her review. On December 11, 1991, Charles Barrowclaugh, an employee of the Respondent, made an inspection of the site and informed representatives of the Petitioner that he had briefed Carol Browner, who was Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation, as to the project and the proposed modifications. Mr. Barrowclaugh stated that he believed the project was permittable. Petitioner was encouraged by Mr. Barrowclaugh's comments and by the fact that he would incur the expenses of traveling to the site. Between December 11, 1991, and November 13, 1992, Petitioner provided information to Respondent pertaining to the revised project. This additional information included a description of the revised plan and a revised schematic drawing, but it did not include detailed drawings of the revised project. On November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell wrote to Mr. McQueen a letter that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The Bureau of Wetland Resource Management has reviewed the revised plan and additional information submitted on September 16. The revised proposal appears to address all of the issues that made the original proposal unpermittable. The detailed 8.5 by 11 inch permitting drawings will have to be revised to reflect the revised proposal and submitted to the Bureau for review. Kelly Custer and Orlando Rivera will be reviewing the project in the future. Petitioner interpreted that letter to mean that the Respondent intended to permit the project. At the time she wrote the letter of November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell thought the revised project would be permitted. Petitioner relied on the oral representations made by Respondent's staff and on the November 13, 1992, letter in continuing pursuit of a permit. Absent these encouraging comments by Respondent's staff, Petitioner would have discontinued pursuit of the permit. Although Petitioner was understandably encouraged by the discussions its representatives had with Respondent's staff, it knew, or should have known, that the favorable comments it was receiving from members of Respondent's staff were preliminary and that additional information would be required and further evaluation of the project would take place. Petitioner's representatives knew that the staff with whom they were having these discussions did not have the authority to approve the application, but that they could only make recommendations to their superiors. In late 1992, Kevin Pope, an Environmental Specialist employed by Respondent, was assigned as the primary reviewer of the revised project. At the time he became the primary reviewer of the project, Mr. Pope did not make an immediate, independent evaluation of the project, and relied on what other staffers who had been involved in the review told him. Until he conducted his own review of the project, Mr. Pope believed that the project was "clearly permissible". Mr. Pope informed a representative of the Petitioner of that belief and told the representative that he was prepared to start drafting the permit once he received final drawings documenting the modifications to the project. Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Pope received the drawings he requested. After he received and reviewed the final drawings, Mr. Pope determined that all issues raised by the denial letter had not been addressed. Among the concerns he had was the fact that the project would dredge into the Indian River to the Intercoastal Waterway and that part of the dredging activity (at the north end of the project) would be in Class II shellfish approved waters. Mr. Pope again contacted the state and federal agencies that had originally commented on the project, described the proposed modifications to the project, and requested comments. Most of the agencies continued to object to the project. On August 5, 1992, Mr. Pope held a meeting with the commenting agencies and with representatives of the Petitioner to discuss the objections to the project. 3/ The agencies provided additional comments after this meeting and most continued to oppose the project. Mr. Kurtz testified that on June 1, 1993, Stacey Callahan, an attorney employed by Respondent, told him that she was attempting to draft the permit for the project. Ms. Callahan asked for sample wording for a restrictive covenant or for an easement that would limit the number of boats that could use the proposed docks. Subsequent to that inquiry, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Pope that the project would be denied. Petitioner has not made any specific proposal to assure a limitation on the number of boats that will be able to dock in the proposed canal. In June of 1993, a large number of objections to the project were filed with Respondent by members of the public. In early July, 1993, Secretary Wetherell responded to those objectors with a letter stating, in part, that the "Department's letter of November 1992 indicating an intent to issue for the project was imminent appears to have been premature." On September 20, 1993, Mr. Pope informed Petitioner's attorney that the Respondent was not going to change its position that the project, even with the modifications, should be denied. The decision not to permit the modified project was made by Mr. Pope. The only permit application filed by the Petitioner was the application for the initial permit. No formal amended application that incorporates all of the changes that Petitioner discussed with Respondent's staff was filed. A total of $74,735 was spent on behalf of the applicant on this project between December 26, 1991, (the date of the meeting with Mr. Barrowclaugh) and July 31, 1993, (the date the property was conveyed to Petitioner). From July 31, 1993, through April of 1994, Petitioner spent an additional $47,488 on the application for this project. The expenditures after July 31, 1993, included engineering costs that were incurred before that date. These figures do not include the costs of this proceeding. THE REVISED PROJECT The revised project may be summarily described as follows: Petitioner proposes to construct a canal that will be approximately 6,400 feet long, up to 200 feet wide, and -7 NGVD deep as depicted on drawings that have been submitted into evidence. There will be a littoral zone 40 feet wide on the west side of the canal and a littoral zone 10 feet wide on the east side. A hydrological channel, proposed from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable a proper flow of water through the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 70 feet in length, and -3 NGVD. Petitioner proposes to construct a barrier at the north terminus of the canal to prevent manatees and boats from entering the canal from the north and has agreed to maintain that barrier. An access channel, proposed from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable boats access to the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 700 feet in length, and -7 NGVD. A total of 62 docks are proposed. The project includes a mitigation plan that will be discussed below. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The construction of the hydrological channel would be in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters. Dredging in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters is prohibited unless a variance is issued by Respondent that would permit this otherwise prohibited activity. Petitioner's attorney submitted a letter to the Respondent on August 18, 1993, for a variance to construct the channel from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: DEP Rule 17-312.080(17) states: "Permits for dredging or filling directly in Class II or Class III waters which are approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources shall not be issued." This provision is applicable to the pending application by Orchid Island Associates. Accordingly, we discussed Orchid Island requesting a variance pursuant to Section 403.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-103.100, Florida Administrative Code, as a means of overcoming this prohibition. Since the dredge and fill application is pending, you indicated it would be appropriate for Orchid Island to ask, during final review of this application, that the Department also consider a request for a variance pursuant to the above mentioned statute and rule. Please consider this letter that request. . . . Petitioner did not submit along with its request the fee required by Respondent to process that request. Respondent did not advise Petitioner that it would not process its request without the requisite application fee until the prehearing stipulation was prepared for this proceeding shortly before the formal hearing. There was no evidence that Petitioner attempted to check on the status of its request for a variance or that it expected Respondent to act on the request for a variance independent of its final review of the overall project. As of the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not submitted to Respondent the fee that Respondent asserts is required before the request for the variance will be processed. Respondent asserted that position in the prehearing statement that was filed shortly before the formal hearing. The evidence as to the flow of water through the proposed canal assumed the existence of the hydrological channel from the north terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway and the existence of the access channel from the south terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT The revised version of the artificial waterway will be excavated primarily from uplands, but the excavation will require that 3.6 acres of wetlands be filled and 7.1 acres of wetlands be dredged. The direct impact on wetlands will be at least 10.7 acres. The mitigation plan proposes that the berms around the mosquito impoundment will be leveled, the berm ditches will be filled, and certain rotary ditches will be dredged. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that proposed activity was not established. The artificial waterway will be constructed utilizing a series of separate construction cells, a rim ditch, and filtration chambers. All excavated material will be disposed of on uplands. The construction system will filter most solids. Turbidity suppression devices will be used to minimize any turbidity associated with the excavation of the access channel at the south terminus and the hydrological channel at the north terminus. Petitioner established that its proposed construction techniques are consistent with best management practices. The small body of water that is referred to as the former borrow pit in the denial letter of September 12, 1991, is known as Boot Lake. Petitioner proposes to dredge the eastern end of Boot Lake, consisting of an area 800 feet by 180 feet (3.3 acres), to create part of the canal. The access channel at the south terminus of the canal will be approximately 700 feet in length and will have to be hydraulically excavated in the Indian River to connect the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. The hydrological channel at the north terminus of the canal will be hydraulically excavated to connect the canal to the Indian River. The connection will require approximately 70 feet of dredging to -3 NGVD, which is the minimum necessary to maintain the proper flow of water through the canal. HYDROLOGY OF THE CANAL The artificial waterway will function as a flow-through system driven by a difference in the water surface elevation (the head difference) between the north terminus and the south terminus. The flushing of the artificial waterway far exceeds the Respondent's flushing requirement benchmark, which is a flushing time of four days. If a hypothetical pollutant's concentration is reduced to 10 percent of its initial concentration in four days, the flushing is considered to be acceptable. The flushing time for the system is approximately 2.6 hours, which will produce five total volume replacements per tidal cycle. The predicted flushing of the artificial waterway is quite rapid and energetic. The predominate flow of water in the artificial waterway is from north to south. At times, however, the flow will be from the south to the north. At the request of the Respondent, Petitioner conducted a tracer dye study within the Indian River at the proposed south terminus of the artificial waterway. No tracer dye study was requested for the north terminus. Although there was some disagreement as to the import of the tracer dye study, it established that pollutants introduced into the Indian River from the canal would be rapidly dispersed in the Indian River. WATER QUALITY - THE CANAL The artificial waterway will be classified as Class III waters of the State. Water quality within the artificial waterway will reflect the current water quality in the Indian River. Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the water quality within the artificial waterway itself will not violate state standards. Two potential sources of pollutants to the artificial waterway have been identified. The first source is stormwater runoff through the stormwater management system associated with the upland development. The second is pollution inherent with the docking and operation of large vessels. Respondent interprets its rules so that discharge of pollutants into the artificial waterway will constitute indirect discharges to the Indian River. Because of the excellent flushing capacity of the canal, pollutants will not tend to accumulate in the canal. A pollutant entering the canal or a spill of pollutants into the canal will mix very little in the canal, probably less than five percent, so the pollutant will discharge from the canal into the Indian River as a plug. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether pollutants introduced into the canal will enter the Indian River in measurable quantities. Testimony was elicited from Dr. Roessler, one of Petitioner's experts, that water entering the Indian River from the artificial waterway will not contain pollutants that are either measurably or statistically differentiable from the Indian River itself. That result depends, however, on the amount and the source of the pollutant introduced into the canal. Because of the rapid flushing of the canal, small spills or slowly released discharges of pollutants are not expected to result in water quality degradation in the Indian River. Since a pollutant introduced into the canal will exit in a plug essentially in the same concentration as it entered the canal, Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances that large spills or discharges of pollutants from vessels or from other sources will not be discharged into the Indian River in concentrations that can be measured or that such large spills or discharges will not degrade the quality of the Indian River. Water from the canal will come out of both the north end and the south end of the canal. Some of the plume coming out of the north end may tend to hug the shoreline, with some of the plume reentering the canal when the tides change. Stormwater runoff contains significant amounts of fecal coliform, sometimes more than raw sewage. The stormwater management system associated with the upland development was permitted by the St. Johns Water Management District. The majority of the system is currently in place and functioning to retain stormwater runoff. The stormwater management system is designed to retain all of the first 4.75 inches of rainfall and most of the first 6.2 inches of rainfall. The design of this system exceeds the requirements imposed by the St. Johns Water Management District, which is that the first 1.5 inches of rainfall be retained. Stormwater management regulations are technology-based treatment criteria. If a system meets the retention requirement, it is presumed that no water quality will be violated by discharges through the system. Petitioner established that the stormwater management system was designed and constructed to retain at least three times the amount of rainfall required by the St. Johns Water Management District. Construction of the proposed canal will intercept two stormwater discharge pipes from the upland golf course and residential development. There was no evidence that the St. Johns Water Management System has reviewed this change in the system that has been permitted. The proposed change in where the outflow will be discharged could be significant since the discharge pipes are presently designed to discharge overflows from the system into wetland areas that provided additional natural treatment of the overflow before the overflow reaches the Indian River. With this change the overflow will be discharged during extraordinary storm events into the canal and thereafter into the Indian River without additional natural treatment. Because there will be modifications to the stormwater system the approval of that system by the St. Johns Water Management District should not be relied upon as providing reasonable assurances that no water quality violations will be caused by stormwater discharge. If this project is to be permitted, Petitioner should be required as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit to have the proposed changes to the system reviewed by the St. Johns Water Management District and it should be required to obtain an amendment to the stormwater management system permit that would authorize the proposed changes. The project contemplates the construction of 62 docks. The size and the docking capacity of each dock has not been established. While Petitioner presented testimony that it is likely that only 50 percent of the docks will likely be used at any one time, that testimony is considered to be speculative. The number and size of boats that can or will be docked in the canal at any one time or on a regular basis is unknown. It is likely that each dock will have docking capacity for at least one vessel up to 60 feet in length and for a smaller vessel. The manner in which these docks will be constructed was not established. Chromatic copper arsenic, which is frequently used to coat docks and anti-fouling paints containing heavy metals used on boats are sources of contamination to shellfishing. Oils and greases from boats contain hydrocarbons which can adversely impact shellfish. These contaminants can have adverse impacts to shellfish at very low concentrations. Petitioner has agreed to prohibit live-aboard vessels and to prohibit the fueling and maintenance of vessels within the artificial waterway. Sewage containing fecal coliform dumped or spilled from boats or from stormwater discharge is a primary source of contamination for shellfishing waters. It is the practice of the Respondent's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section to close waters to shellfishing in the vicinity of marinas, mainly due to potential contamination from untreated sewage. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section does not recommend the immediate closing of shellfishing waters when a project involves single family docks associated with a residence because it assumes people will use bathroom facilities in the house instead of on the boat. The Respondent does not have reasonable assurances that there will be houses associated with each of the 50 foot lots designated at the southern end of the canal. If a proposed facility has boat docks, but does not have houses associated with each dock, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would recommend closure of shellfishing in the vicinity of the facility. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would not recommend immediate closure of the shellfishing waters in the vicinity of this proposed project because it has assumed that each of the proposed docks will be associated with a house. If this project is to be permitted, reasonable assurances should be required that a residence will be constructed before or contemporaneously with the construction of a dock. The modifications made by Petitioner to the project will reduce the danger of pollutants from vessels in the artificial waterway. However, because the number and the size of the vessels that will be using the artificial waterway was not established, the extent of pollutants from vessels is unknown. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that measurable pollutants would not indirectly discharge into the Indian River from the canal. IMPACT ON WETLANDS Of the approximately 10.70 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed waterway, 4.10 acres are predominately impacted by invasive exotic (non-native) plants, 4.27 acres are somewhat impacted by exotic plants, and 2.23 acres are not impacted by exotic plants. The exotic plants found at the project site are primarily Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. The mitigation plan, which will be discussed below, proposes that the berms constructed around the mosquito impoundment area be removed and the rim ditches that abut the berms be filled. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that activity was not established. The project contemplates that rotary ditches will be constructed at different places in the mosquito impoundment area after the berms are removed and the berm ditches filled. The areas to be impacted by the construction of the rotary ditches were not identified. The Petitioner proposes to dredge out the entire east end of Boot Lake for use as part of the canal. This area will be approximately 800 feet by 180 feet and will be 3.3 acres. Boot Lake is a fairly healthy biological system, about the same as the Indian River. It was found to contain 22 species of fish and seven species of birds, with brown pelican and the great blue heron dominant. Eleven species of crustacean, six species of mollusks, 24 vermes 4/ and one coelenterate were collected from the lake. Replacement of the eastern portion of Boot Lake with the canal will adversely impact those species. Between the Indian River and the proposed waterway is a mosquito impoundment constructed in the early 1960s. The mosquito impoundment and associated berms total approximately 105 acres. The exact area was not established since there is an unresolved issue as to the exact location of the mean high water line. 5/ The impoundment is breached in several locations and no longer functions efficiently as a mosquito impoundment. IMPACTS ON SEAGRASSES The excavation of the access channel from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway will involve the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of a healthy, productive seagrass bed. Seagrasses are beneficial for wildlife habitat as they provide a substrate for algae and diatoms. Seagrasses are a direct food source for manatees and other species, and provide shelter and protection for fish. Seagrasses observed in this area where grasses will be eliminated are Halodule writtii, Syringodium filiforme, and Halophia johnsonii. Halophia, one of the identified species in this seagrass bed, is designated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as a rare and endangered species. Besides the seagrasses actually eliminated where the channel is to be constructed, other nearby seagrasses are also likely to be affected. The sides of the channel are likely to slough to some degree, which would adversely impact the seagrasses abutting the channel. The operation of power boats, even at slow speeds, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. Maintenance dredging, which will be required every few years, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. There are presently thousands of acres of seagrasses located within the Indian River. There has been a historical decline in seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon. Since 1950, there has been a 30 percent loss of seagrasses and seagrass habitat. IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH The proposed project will have an adverse impact on shellfish and shellfishing. At a minimum, the project will require dredging in a shellfishing area. The hydrological channel that will be dredged to connect the north terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be located in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. Both commercial and recreational shellfishing occur in the Indian River adjacent to the project site. The predominate flow of water through the canal will be southerly. There will be, however, a predictable northerly flow of waters that will cause waters from the proposed canal and any associated contaminants contained in those waters to flow from the north terminus of the canal into the Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. The proposed project may introduce a significant amount of freshwater into the adjoining shellfishing waters of Indian River, primarily in the vicinity of the north terminus of the canal. Any additional freshwater discharges to shellfishing waters is a concern because fecal coliform bacteria survive longer in freshwater than saltwater. Three likely sources of freshwater that would be added by this project to the Indian River in the conditionally approved shellfishing area were identified by Respondent. First, the proposed canal appears to be intersecting near its north terminus with a sulphur spring or artesian well which produces fresh water with a high sulphur content. Fresh water will likely be introduced into the canal from this source and discharged into the shellfishing waters when the tidal flow becomes northward. Second, freshwater may be introduced into the canal from the overflow pipes from the surface water management system. This source of freshwater would not be significant. Third, additional freshwater may enter the area after the berms around the mosquito impoundment area are removed as contemplated by the mitigation plan. The extent of this source of freshwater was not established. If this project is permitted, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section will monitor this area for water quality to determine if the area will have to be closed for shellfishing. This additional monitoring, for which Respondent will pay, will be required because of the potential adverse impacts this project presents to shellfishing. Because of evidence of deteriorating water quality, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section is recommending that the shellfishing waters adjacent to the site be reclassified from "conditionally approved" to "conditionally restricted". In "conditionally restricted" waters, shellfish can still be harvested, but the harvested shellfish have to be placed in designated waters or in on-land facilities so the shellfish can cleanse themselves of fecal coliform before going to market. The conditions in the area of the proposed project are not yet bad enough to prohibit shellfishing. IMPACT ON MANATEES There are approximately 2,000 manatees living in Florida waters, with approximately 1,000 living on the east coast and approximately 1,000 living on the west coast. The manatee is an endangered species, and the long-term survival of the species is not secure. The Indian River in the area of the proposed project provides good habitat for manatees and is a major travel corridor for several hundred manatees. Indian River County is one of 13 key counties that has been designated by the Governor and Cabinet to address special manatee concerns. Manatees traveling back and forth in this area usually use the channel of the Intercoastal Waterway because it is deeper and allows manatees an easier travel route. Speed zones for boat traffic are an effective manatee protection mechanism. The artificial waterway will be posted as an idle speed zone. The area where the access channel connecting the south terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be dredged is presently designated as a slow speed zone and the access channel itself will be marked. Petitioner has agreed to implement Respondent's standard manatee conditions. Seagrasses are an important source of food for manatees. The project contemplates that 0.05 acres of seagrass will be dredged, but that Spartina will be planted in parts of the littoral zone. While manatees eat Spartina to some extent, they prefer seagrasses. Since there are thousands of acres of seagrass located in the Indian River, it is concluded that the elimination of 0.05 acres of seagrass associated with this project is negligible and will not adversely affect manatees. A barrier to navigation will be maintained at the north terminus of the waterway to preclude boat access and limit access to the waterway by manatees. Manatees would be unable to enter or leave the artificial waterway via the north terminus. The artificial waterway will not attract manatees and should not, in and of itself, adversely impact manatees. The main adverse impact to manatees from this proposed project is the threat of collisions by boats that leave the canal and enter the waters of the Indian River, including the Intercoastal Waterway. At least ten West Indian manatees have been killed by boats in Indian River County since 1981. Even with the speed limits, the increase in boating in this area will present an increased risk to manatees. IMPACT ON BIRDS No species of wading birds, including those listed as endangered or threatened, nests or roosts within the project site. The project site is not currently heavily utilized by wading birds, but several species of wading birds were observed foraging for food in Boot Lake. It is reasonable to expect that dredging of Boot Lake and the increased boat traffic will have an adverse impact on birds. Diving birds, such as the brown pelican and least tern, will benefit from the increased open waterway created by the canal, which should serve as a feeding habitat. Wading birds congregate and nest in rookeries. The area of the proposed project is within the foraging range of 14 active rookeries, and it is reasonable to expect that those rookeries will be disturbed by the increased boat use or human activity that the project will bring to this area. Officials of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge have observed such disturbances and are opposed to this project. The pressure of human and boating activities on bird rookeries in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, including human intrusion into buffer zones established to protect the birds, has resulted in a continuing decline of the bird population since 1960. When disturbed by boats or by humans, the parent wading bird will often leave the nest, which exposes the eggs or the chicks to attack by predators or to overexposure to sunlight. Boaters will often cause wading birds who are foraging for food to flush, which disturbs their search for food. Certain species of wading birds are flushed more frequently and for longer distances when flushed from narrow tidal creeks in Spartina marshes (a habitat similar to the proposed canal) than in open shoreline habitat. IMPACT ON FISH The existing ditches inside the mosquito impoundment berms presently provide a habitat similar to that of a tidal creek for a variety of fish, including juvenile snook, tarpon, red drum, black drum, lady fish, and mullet. The proposed project will result in the filling of these habitats and impoundments. As a consequence of that activity, these species of fish will be adversely impacted by the project. Although Petitioner proposes to construct certain rotary ditches that it asserts would provide a habitat similar to that provided by the existing ditches, Petitioner has not submitted any plans or drawings or other specific information concerning these rotary ditches and has not provided reasonable assurances that these proposed rotary will replace the habitat that will be eliminated by the filling of the existing ditches. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Other projects have been permitted on the Indian River north and south of the proposed project that have increased boat traffic on the Indian River in the vicinity of the project. The Respondent has not identified any similar projects which have been permitted in the vicinity within the last five years. The only similar application pending before the Respondent in the vicinity of the project is for two docks north of the project site. Although Respondent established that boat traffic on the Indian River has increased, this project is unique in scope and design, and it is concluded that Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that no negative cumulative impacts will be associated with the project. OTHER PERMITTING CRITERIA The parties stipulated to the following facts that pertain to permitting criteria: The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The proposed waterway will be located almost entirely on private property in areas not currently utilized for fishing or other recreational activities. Except for the impacts on shellfishing, birds, and fish discussed above, the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values within the vicinity of the project. THE MITIGATION PLAN Petitioner has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts associated with the type project it is proposing. Because there will be adverse impacts to an Outstanding Florida Water, the project can be permitted only if it is determined that the mitigation plan offsets the adverse impacts and makes the project clearly in the public interest. Petitioner's mitigation plan was contained in the original application and was revised between October 1991 and January 1992. Respondent considered the current mitigation plan in its review of this project. The current mitigation plan consists of the creation of wetlands, the enhancement of wetlands, and the preservation and donation of wetlands owned by Petitioner within the mosquito impoundment. The estimated cost of creation and enhancement of the mitigation plan is $600,000. Petitioner proposes to create approximately 14 acres of wetlands by removing the mosquito impoundment berms and converting other uplands within the impoundment to wetlands. These areas will be revegetated with various wetland plant species including red, black, and white mangroves. In addition, Petitioner proposes to create a forty foot wide intertidal littoral zone along the entire length of the western side of the artificial waterway and a ten foot wide littoral zone along the entire eastern side of the artificial waterway. Approximately three acres of the littoral zone will be created from uplands. The littoral zone will be revegetated with 80 percent cord grass and 20 percent red mangrove. Petitioner proposes to implement an open marsh mosquito control management program consisting of the elimination of natural accumulations of water in low lying areas within the impoundment by rotary ditching small channels to allow these areas to drain and to allow predator fish access to the areas. Petitioner will remove exotic plant species throughout the impoundment and will revegetate with native species such as red, black, and white mangroves. Petitioner proposes to monitor the project area to assure that exotic plant species do not re-colonize. The mosquito impoundment area and the associated berms is estimated as being approximately 105 acres. Because of the difficulty in determining the mean high water line and because of the number of breaches in the berms, the precise acreage within the impoundment area that is not currently sovereign lands was not established. If accurately surveyed, it is possible that the amount of acreage within the impoundment owned by Petitioner may be determined to be up to 10 percent less than is currently estimated. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is found that 105 acres is a reasonable estimate of the area of the impoundment owned by Petitioner. After completion of the enhancement program, Petitioner proposes to donate all the property it owns within the impoundment to the State of Florida. Petitioner asserts that it would have the right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River if this project is not permitted and that these docks would not be subject to Respondent's permitting jurisdiction. The construction of such docks would have an adverse impact on manatees and seagrasses. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner offers to waive its right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River. EVALUATION OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The wetland in the existing impoundment area is presently a good biological system that contains a good diversity of plants and animals. While Petitioner's proposals will enhance this area, the evaluation of that enhancement should take into consideration the quality of the existing system. There are at least three existing breaches in the berm system. Through these breaches there is some tidal influences and the export of detrital material. Because of the relatively isolated nature of the mosquito impoundment, it currently contributes little to the productivity of the Indian River. The removal of the berm system will result in greater tidal influence in the impoundment area. As a consequence, much of the leaf litter from mangroves within the impoundment that presently accumulates on site would be exported as detrital material to the Indian River, which will add material to the food chain. It is expected that increased tidal influence will also result in an improvement in the dissolved oxygen levels within the impoundment. The reestablishment of tidal influence within the impoundment area will increase habitat for fish, shrimp, and crabs, and therefore benefit the Indian River. Removal of the impoundment berms to reestablish tidal influences within the impoundment area will increase and improve feeding and forage habitat for wading birds. Consequently, wading birds that nest in the vicinity of the project will be benefited. Increased tidal influence will likely result in better growth for mangroves which would create roosting sites for wading birds where none presently exist. Currently, Australian pines are the dominate species in areas within the impoundment area. Other areas of the impoundment are heavily populated by Brazilian pepper. Australian pines and Brazilian peppers do not serve as food sources for any native wildlife and have the potential to crowd out native plant species such as mangroves. If not removed, the potential exists for Brazilian pepper to become the dominate plant species. Removal of exotics and replanting with native species is a benefit to the Indian River system. With an appropriate monitoring plan, the exotic removal should be successful. If the project is permitted, the implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Because of widespread mosquito control activities, the high marsh ecosystem is now rare in the Indian River system. The restoration of the impoundment area to an area of high marsh would be of benefit to the Indian River ecosystem. Prior to alteration by man, the mosquito impoundment was a high marsh ecosystem consisting primarily of black and white mangroves over an understory of succulent plants. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the Petitioner's proposals would result in the impoundment area returning to a high marsh area. While the impoundment area will be enhanced by the Petitioner's proposals, it is found that whether the area will be returned to a high marsh system is speculative. The mosquito impoundment is breached in various locations and, as a consequence, the impoundment is not functioning to control mosquitoes as it was originally designed. The current primary mechanism for mosquito control within the breached mosquito impoundment is aerial spraying of insecticides. The proposed removal of the existing berms will not adversely affect mosquito control and may positively affect mosquito control due to the increased accessibility of the impoundment by natural predators such as fish. This open marsh management plan is an effective means of controlling mosquitoes. The wetland creation proposed by Petitioner should have a high rate of success. Petitioner has agreed to implement a suitable monitoring plan to further guarantee the success of the proposal. If the project is permitted, the implementation of a suitable monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Scraping down the mosquito berms will create more wetlands, but the earth from the berms will be placed in the adjacent ditches, which presently serve as valuable tidal creek type habitat. Therefore, the mitigation itself will have some adverse impact. Petitioner's unspecified proposal to put in some rotary ditches to offset the loss of tidal creek habitat is inadequate in that there has been no specific proposal as to the location, size, shape, configuration, or acreage of the proposed rotary ditches. While planting of the littoral zones on the edges of the canal with Spartina provides some biological value, the growth of Spartina on the ten foot ledge on the east side will be impacted by boats and docks. The littoral zones will likely perform valuable wetland functions if properly planted and monitored and will likely become a productive wetland system that will provide habitat for wading birds. If the project is permitted, the Petitioner should be required to monitor the Spartina planting to ensure its successful growth. Even if the creation of the 13.9 acres of wetlands is successful, it will take years to become a mature biological system similar to the wetlands they are to replace. This time lag should be taken into account when evaluating the mitigation plan. There are adverse impacts from this proposed project that the mitigation plan does not offset. The mitigation plan does not offset the elimination of seagrasses, the loss of the Boot Lake habitat, the potential adverse impacts to shellfish and shellfishing, or the impacts to manatees. It is likely that property owners wishing to construct docks directly into the Indian River would have to get a permit from Respondent to gain access to the parts of the property where these docks could be constructed. Any proposal to extend docks into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge would likely be prevented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whether such docks would, or could, be constructed is speculative, and this portion of the mitigation plan should be accorded little weight. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner proposes to donate approximately 105 acres to the State of Florida. This is considered to be a favorable aspect of the mitigation plan. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the mitigation plan offsets the negative impacts of this project so that the project becomes "clearly in the public interest." This issue is resolved by finding that even when the mitigation plan and the conditions that are recommended herein are considered, this project is "not clearly in the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which denies the modified application for the subject project. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of August, 1994.
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.
The Issue The issues are whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation is entitled to the issuance of an industrial wastewater facility permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program that would authorize it to discharge industrial wastewater to the St. Johns River in Putnam County, Florida, and whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation has met the statutory criteria for a related administrative order for the interim discharge to Rice Creek in Putnam County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of wastes to waters of the State. Under approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program in the State. The Department also enforces specific water quality standards that have to be achieved in order to ensure protection of the designated uses of surface waters in the State. Respondent, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Georgia- Pacific), owns and operates a bleached and unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill in Putnam County, Florida. The plant presently discharges treated wastewater to Rice Creek, a Class III water of the State, and a tributary of the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Putnam County Environmental Council, Inc. (PCEC), alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) that it is a non-profit Florida corporation headquartered in Palatka, Florida. However, other than a statement by one witness that PCEC was incorporated on an undisclosed date prior to the hearing, PCEC failed to present any evidence to establish its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. According to the same witness, the organization was created in an unincorporated status in 1991, and it currently has 65 members who use and enjoy the St. Johns River for recreational purposes. Petitioner, Stewards of the St. Johns River, Inc. (SSJR), also alleged in the Petition that it is a non-profit Florida corporation with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. Like PCEC, SSJR failed to prove its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. Although the number of members in SSJR is unknown, "many" of its members are boaters and "most" live along the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Linda Young, is Southeast Regional Coordinator for the Clean Water Network and a citizen of the State of Florida. As such, she has standing to "intervene" in this action under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In this complex case, the parties have presented extensive and conflicting evidence regarding the factual issues raised by the pleadings. In resolving the numerous conflicts in that testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, as set forth in the findings below. The Applicant's Mill Operation Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill was built in the 1940's before the establishment of Department water quality standards and classifications. Because of the nature of the pulping process, the mill has not been able to fully meet water quality standards in Rice Creek because of poor dilution. Georgia-Pacific receives wood chips from a sister facility and purchases residual chips from local wood products facilities. Those chips are separated into pine and hardwood, conveyed into the pulp processing facility, and loaded into digesters, that is, industrial-sized pressure cookers, which cook the chips for several hours. Pulp from the digesters goes to the brown kraft, bleached kraft, and tissue manufacturing facilities. Water in the manufacturing process is used, re-used, and recirculated until it cannot be used again, at which point it is conveyed into a primary wastewater clarifier, which is used to settle out fiber and other settleable solids. Additional wastewater sources are collected in sumps located in the facility, which are discharged into the primary clarifier. The underflow from the primary clarifier flows into a solids settling area (sludge pond) while the water from the primary clarifier passes into a secondary treatment system. The secondary treatment system uses aerobic and facultative biological treatment. Stormwater at the facility also flows into the treatment system. The secondary treatment system consists of four ponds in series: Pond 1, 485 acres, aerated with over 1600 horsepower of aeration; Pond 2, 175 acres, with 140 horsepower of aeration; Pond 3, 130 acres, with 120 horsepower of aeration; and Pond 4, 100 acres. Pond 4 is a quiescent basin, used to settle solids in the wastewater before discharge. The treatment system has a very long hydraulic detention time; once water enters the system, it remains there for 50 to 60 days. After treatment, a side stream of roughly 8,000,000 gallons per day of treated effluent is withdrawn, oxygenated with liquid oxygen, and discharged at two locations in Rice Creek: 3.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-001); and 2.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-002). Under low flow conditions, effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill dominates the flow in Rice Creek. The Application Process Rice Creek is a small tributary of the St. Johns River, particularly in its upper reaches where Georgia- Pacific's effluent discharge occurs. Over the years, there have been exceedances of certain Class III water quality standards including specific conductance, color, and periodically whole effluent toxicity. Because of this, and during the permit review process, the Department began considering alternatives for mitigating or eliminating those existing concerns with the facility's discharge. In October 1992, Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for the renewal of its existing wastewater discharge permit. In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific submitted an application to the Department for the construction and operation of an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system. This application included a request to relocate Georgia-Pacific’s existing discharge to the St. Johns River. Because Georgia-Pacific submitted timely permit applications, it is authorized to continue operations based on an "administratively extended permit." In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific also applied to the EPA for a permit under the NPDES program. In October 1994, the EPA acknowledged receipt of a timely application for the renewal of Georgia-Pacific's existing NPDES permit, advising Georgia-Pacific by letter that its permit was automatically extended and that continued operation was authorized in accordance with the existing permit and 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c). On May 24, 1995, the Department advised Georgia- Pacific that the EPA had granted the Department the authority to administer the NPDES program and that its state permit and existing NPDES permit were deemed combined into one order. In response to a Department request, in November 1995, Georgia-Pacific submitted to the Department an antidegradation review for the relocation of its discharge. After Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for a renewal of its NPDES permit, the Department directed Georgia-Pacific to provide alternatives that would ensure compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific submitted a proposal to construct a pipeline that would enable it to discharge its effluent to the middle of the St. Johns River. Under that proposal, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with water quality standards as a result of greater dilution in the St. Johns River. Based on a review of Georgia-Pacific's submittal, the Department determined that Georgia-Pacific could in fact achieve water quality standards by constructing a pipeline to the St. Johns River. Likewise, the EPA concluded that Georgia-Pacific could receive a permit to discharge to the St. Johns River through a pipeline, without additional process improvements. Although the Department concluded that compliance could be achieved solely by the construction of a pipeline, it began discussions with Georgia-Pacific and EPA in order to examine other approaches that might lead to compliance in Rice Creek. These discussions culminated in a decision that Georgia-Pacific would invest substantial funds in the installation of additional technology and also be assured of some ultimate means to achieve compliance with water quality standards. On May 1, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an industrial wastewater permit, together with an Order Establishing Compliance Schedules Under 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes (the Administrative Order). In late January 2002, Georgia-Pacific submitted a request to the Department asking for consideration of two changes to the proposed permit: first, a request to relocate a groundwater monitoring well; and second, a request to review the Department's proposed mixing zone in the St. Johns River for the transparency standard. The Department also proposes a minor change in permit conditions to allow approval of the bleach plant monitoring plan to take place within sixty days after the issuance of the final permit. Both of Georgia- Pacific's requests were reviewed by the Department, and it has recommended that they be included in the proposed permit. Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits When considering a permit application such as the one here, the Department reviews the application to determine compliance with technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). TBELs are minimum industry standards that all facilities must meet regardless of their discharge location. They are predominantly production-based, and they limit the mass of pollutants that may be discharged based on the mass of product produced. Those limits generally reflect EPA's assessment of the industry standard regarding what can be met in a given discharge. In the preparation of a permit, the Department practice is to first determine the TBELs that would apply. In contrast, a WQBEL reflects how low the discharge must be (or how effective treatment must be) for a given parameter to meet water quality standards. Relief mechanisms such as mixing zones are inherent in WQBELs. A WQBEL is necessary only for those parameters for which there is a reasonable potential for the facility either to exceed the water quality standard or come close to exceeding the standard. As a matter of agency practice, the Department does not impose a limit unless there is a reasonable potential to exceed a standard. In order to determine whether there is such a reasonable potential for exceeding a standard, the Department will review past operations and other information it may have regarding the characteristics of the discharge. For a discharge such as the one proposed in the present case, a "Level II" WQBEL is required. The Department's Point Source Section, with expertise in the field of water quality modeling, analyzes the Level II WQBEL. Georgia-Pacific must meet certain technology-based standards, such as those set forth in the Cluster Rule. The Cluster Rule has been promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department and requires the installation of technologies to eliminate the use of elemental chlorine in the bleaching process. The Palatka facility far exceeds (performs better than) technology-based effluent limits. In March 1998, the Department created a document titled "Level II Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for the Georgia Pacific Corp. Palatka Mill" (the WQBEL Technical Report]. The WQBEL Technical Report has a typed notation on the title page reading "March 1998 -- Final." The WQBEL Technical Report contained the following effluent discharge limitations: The following are the effluent limitations for the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill discharge to the St. Johns River based upon results from the Level II WQBEL. Review comments from EPA Region 4 are included in the correspondence section. Parameter Limitation Discharge 60 MGD Daily Maximum BOD5 Summer (June 1 - November 30) 3,500 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 7,170 lbs/day maximum thirty day average TSS Summer (June 1 - November 30) 5,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 10,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Dissolved Oxygen 2.7 mg/l minimum Specific conductance 3,220 umhos/cm daily maximum Un-Ionized Ammonia Nitrogen Summer (June 1 - November 30) .11 ug/l daily maximum Winter (December 1 – May 31) .13 ug/l daily maximum Iron (Total Recoverable) 2.91 mg/l daily maximum Cadmium (Total Recoverable) 3.46 ug/l daily maximum Lead (Total Recoverable) 5.87 ug/l daily maximum Zinc (Total Recoverable) 480 ug/l daily maximum When the WQBEL Technical Report was approved in 1998, the Department's Northeast District Office did not prepare a separate formal notice of approval. The WQBEL Technical Report was transmitted by memorandum from the Water Quality Assessment Section to the Department's Director of District Management for the Northeast District on April 13, 1998, where it remained on file. The WQBEL Technical Report complied with the plan of study previously approved by the Department, and it met the requirements of Rule 62-650.500, Florida Administrative Code. Both the Department and EPA staff concurred with the approval of the WQBEL Technical Report. They agreed that the construction of a pipeline and the relocation of the discharge to the St. Johns River would yield a net environmental benefit without additional process improvements. Upgrades Implemented and Required in the Proposed Agency Actions As described more fully below, Georgia-Pacific has modified its production and treatment processes in such a manner as to improve its overall environmental performance. In installing some of those modifications, Georgia-Pacific undertook what was required by federal and state law. For others, Georgia-Pacific has exceeded what it was required to do under state or federal law. To comply with the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific eliminated two bleach plants and installed a new bleach plant, one which uses chlorine dioxide as opposed to elemental chlorine. The implementation of this technology is primarily aimed at eliminating the mechanism for the formation of dioxin in the bleaching plant. Compliance with the Cluster Rule generally requires, among other things, conversion to an elemental chlorine-free bleaching system. Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the Cluster Rule. Under the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific is required to sample for dioxin at its bleach plant, with a limit of under 10 picograms per liter. Georgia-Pacific has experienced reductions in the color of its effluent as the result of the chlorine dioxide conversion as well as reductions in specific conductance. The reductions in specific conductance are particularly significant because Georgia-Pacific has decreased its effluent flow, which would ordinarily increase specific conductance in the absence of additional improvements. After conversion to chlorine dioxide, Georgia- Pacific began monitoring for parameters defined by the Cluster Rule. In that monitoring, Georgia-Pacific has tested "non- detect" for dioxin and chlorinated phenolics. Specifically, Georgia-Pacific has monitored dioxin in its effluent, as well as within its process –- before dilution with other wastewater –- and the monitoring results at both locations are likewise "non-detect" for dioxin. Furthermore, levels of chloroform and adsorbable organic halides (AOX) have been well within the limits imposed by the proposed permit and the Cluster Rule. Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily agreed to install by April 15, 2006, an oxygen delignification system, or a like system that produces similar or better environmental benefits. Oxygen delignification is a precursor to bleaching, which removes lignins from the fiber before the product is bleached. This process is significant because lignin consumes chemicals, impedes bleaching, and prohibits achieving brightness targets in the bleach plant. The cost associated with the oxygen delignification system is $22,700,000. This commitment is reflected in the proposed Administrative Order and Permit. Oxygen delignification has been identified as having significant benefits in terms of reducing the color and specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific voluntarily agreed to install by August 15, 2003, a new brownstock washing system to replace four existing brownstock washing lines. A brownstock washer is a piece of equipment that washes organics away from fiber, after pulping and before oxygen delignification. The cost of this equipment is approximately $30,000,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. The new brownstock washers are not required by Department rules, but they will be helpful in reducing the specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific has also voluntarily agreed to install a green liquor dregs filter. This system would remove dregs from the effluent system and reduce specific conductance and color in the effluent. The cost of the green liquor dregs filter is $1,100,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. Under the proposed agency action, Georgia-Pacific is likewise required to install additional equipment for the implementation of its best management practices program to minimize leaks and spills in the process sewer. This equipment, including controls on the brownstock washer system, and the installation of a spill control system, pumps, and piping, has been installed at a cost of $7,100,000. Georgia-Pacific has also optimized the performance of its treatment system through the relocation of its aerators in the treatment ponds and modifying its nutrient feed system. This has led to reduced levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the discharge, as well as improved treatment for total suspended solids. In addition, Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily installed a reverse osmosis system to recycle certain internal streams, which in turn has led to reductions in specific conductance, at a cost of $3,300,000. To comply with the proposed agency actions, Georgia- Pacific expects to expend a total of approximately $170,000,000 for upgrades for the purpose of producing environmental benefits. Additional money is earmarked for other environmental performance issues, such as water conservation. Except for technology-based limits adopted by rule, the Department does not dictate how a facility achieves compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific demonstrated that its environmental performance is substantially better than required by technology-based limits. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to find that Georgia-Pacific’s commitments to process improvements will lead to a general improvement in water quality in the receiving waters. Relocation of the Discharge As noted above, because of the minimal dilution available in Rice Creek, Georgia-Pacific has never been fully able to achieve water quality standards in Rice Creek, a Class III water body. Rice Creek continues to exceed water quality criteria for specific conductance and color; historically, the discharge had experienced exceedences for the chronic toxicity criterion. Under present conditions, with Georgia-Pacific discharging to Rice Creek and Rice Creek flowing to the St. Johns River, elevated levels of color are experienced along the shoreline of the St. Johns River in the area of existing grass beds. Modeling shows that under current flow conditions from Rice Creek, those color effects are observed on the northwest bank near the confluence of Rice Creek with the St. Johns River. If the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River and discharged near the river bottom through a diffuser, it will beneficially change the distribution of color impacts both to Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Color in Rice Creek will improve, returning to its background color of 100 to 150 platinum cobalt units (pcu). Specific conductance within Rice Creek will also be markedly reduced. Because the input will occur in the middle of the St. Johns River, with higher flows and greater turbulence, there will no longer be relatively highly colored water flowing along the shoreline. Therefore, the relocation will provide a significant benefit of moving highly colored water away from grass beds and will mitigate against any existing effects on those grass beds. It is beneficial to relocate discharges to the middle of a stream, as opposed to the edge of a shoreline, where effluent tends to hug the shoreline. Therefore, regardless of the process improvements, there will be a net environmental improvement by relocating the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River The discharge from the proposed diffuser will be comparatively benign, in comparison to the present flow from Rice Creek into the St. Johns River. This is because the effluent would not reach or hug the shoreline in such a scenario but rather would be diluted in rising to the surface, as well as by its lateral movement in the direction toward the river bank. The relocation of the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River will cause improvements through localized changes in concentrations near the diffuser and the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Georgia- Pacific’s proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not result in water quality degradation, but will instead lead to a general improvement in water quality. Proposed Conditions in the Permit and Administrative Order Before certifying completion of the required manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific is required to submit to the Department a report on its ability to optimize the modifications, as well as a separate report which would determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet certain limits that would enable a continuing discharge to Rice Creek. If the water quality improvements are sufficient to achieve standards in Rice Creek, the permit would be reopened and Georgia-Pacific would be required to maintain the present discharge location to Rice Creek. Otherwise, Georgia-Pacific would be authorized to construct the pipeline to the St. Johns River. The permit is drafted so that Georgia-Pacific will verify the need for mixing zones, as well as the dimensions of proposed mixing zones, after process improvements are complete. The Administrative Order imposes interim effluent limitations during the compliance period described in that Order. The Administrative Order contains "report-only" conditions for certain parameters. For those parameters which do not have interim limits, there is no appropriate standard to apply because information on effluent and water quality conditions is incomplete. The Department also found it unreasonable to impose interim limits that will be met only after Georgia-Pacific completes the improvements requested by the Department. Under Department practice, it is reasonable to impose "report only" conditions for parameters when it is unclear whether the discharge for the facility presents a concern for potential exceedences of water quality standards. In addition, "report only" conditions are used when a facility is undertaking an effort to address problems for certain parameters during a period necessary to achieve compliance. The proposed permit includes mixing zones in the St. Johns River for dissolved oxygen, total recoverable iron, total recoverable cadmium, total recoverable lead, un-ionized ammonia, turbidity, and specific conductance. The length of each of those mixing zones is 16.5 meters, that is, limited to the rise of plume. A mixing zone is also required for transparency, which will require a length of 734 meters. Within 12 months after certifying completion of the manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will be required to re-evaluate the need for mixing zones and effluent limits and re-open the permit as necessary to include final mixing zones, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Compliance with Ambient Water Quality Standards The Petition contends that Georgia-Pacific has not provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the following standards: nutrients (paragraph 18); dissolved oxygen (paragraph 20); chronic toxicity (paragraph 21); total suspended solids (paragraph 23); iron (paragraph 25); and phenolic compounds (paragraph 26). Although no water quality standard is directly applicable, Petitioners also addressed the following water quality issues: biological oxygen demand (BOD) (paragraph 20); dioxin, "related compounds," chlorinated organics, AOX, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (paragraph 22); color (paragraph 24); and total suspended solids (TSS), which is alleged to include total organic carbon (TOC) (paragraph 94). Petitioners asserted that dioxin, chlorinated organics, TSS, and AOX are significant in considering compliance with the "free-from" standard in Rules 62- 302.500(1) and 62-302.530. In determining whether water quality standards will be met, those allegations should only be considered in reference to those adopted standards for the "free-from" standard. The effluent data establishes that Georgia-Pacific will consistently meet the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility has the capacity to comply with the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek, and there is a very high degree of assurance that it has the capability to comply with those standards in the future. In addition, Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility is able to meet the WQBELs established for discharge into the St. Johns River. Evaluation and modeling demonstrate that if a discharge to the St. Johns River is undertaken, the St. Johns River will meet Class III water standards at the edge of the mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific complies with its proposed effluent limits. Also, the effluent will meet all applicable effluent guidelines and technology-based standards adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. The effluent will not settle, form deposits, or create a nuisance, and it will not float as debris, scum, or oil. Finally, the effluent will not produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions so as to create a nuisance. Georgia-Pacific performed an analysis to determine the effluent limits that would be necessary to achieve water quality standards. This analysis included water quality modeling, which is a method of summing up inputs and losses, calculating the amount of material in a system, and determining the concentration of a substance. The model was used to geometrically represent the St. Johns River, Etonia Creek, and the reach of the St. Johns River within the study area, which extended from Buffalo Bluff (15 miles upstream of the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River) to Mile Point 50. Rice Creek enters the St. Johns River at Mile Point 74. When a model is performed, the model will yield estimates or predictions of concentrations throughout a water body. Those predictions can be compared to field observations and measurements; if the model is done properly, the calculated numbers should agree with the measured numbers. Modeling is used to evaluate future conditions based on hypothetical future changes to the system. The modeling methods and advanced time-variable models employed by Georgia- Pacific's consultants were approved by the Department. Georgia-Pacific prepared a plan of study to obtain field data in the St. Johns River for the purpose of assuring that the models would simulate observed concentrations of constituents. The Department approved that plan of study and published a notice of approval. The Department also approved the quality assurance project plan for the collection of water quality data in Georgia-Pacific's modeling efforts. After approval of the plan of study and quality assurance project plan, Georgia-Pacific's consultants performed water quality surveys in November 1994 and May 1995. The models employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants were calibrated and produced the observed water quality results. The proposed diffuser would be located about one foot from the bottom of the channel. As designed, the plume would leave the proposed diffuser and spread out, with the upper part of the plume going to the surface of the water. The plume model calculates the dilution at the centerline of the plume, where there would be a minimum of dilution. This method of using the centerline as a reference point leads to a conservative analysis, and it would require the Applicant to achieve more dilution than might otherwise be necessary to achieve water quality standards. For regulatory purposes, the Department usually uses the maximum height of the rise of the plume to determine a mixing zone, the point at which concentrations along the centerline of the plume would level off. Because of that practice, for certain parameters where the required mixing zone is less than the distance of the rise of the plume, a decrease in effluent limits would not lead to a decrease in the size of the mixing zone. Tidal actions will cause re-entrainment, that is, the movement of dissolved substances back into the plume area. This factor reduces the dilution factor that otherwise would apply to the system. This factor is accounted for in modeling by tying in a diffuser computation to a water quality model. The modeling employed by Georgia-Pacific assumes 7Q10 conditions, that is, a conservative assumption that flow is equal to the lowest one-week average for a ten-year period, where there is little dilution. The employment of this conservative method would minimize the probability of exceedences in the receiving water body. The projection employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants was even more conservative because the 7Q10 flow rate is assumed to apply through a 60-day average flow, a condition that may never occur, and would not be expected to occur once in ten years. In contrast, the use of time-variable simulations would lead to less stringent permitting requirements. The permit provides reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, or operation of the treatment system will not discharge or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. The permit provides reasonable assurance that, based on the effluent limitations determined by the Department in the WQBEL Technical Report, water quality standards would be met outside the area of the proposed mixing zone for specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, iron, cadmium, lead, and zinc. Based on additional analysis as reflected in Georgia-Pacific's proposed amendment to the draft permit, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with the transparency standard with the mixing zone described in its proposed amendment, that is, with a total length of 734 meters. The chronic toxicity criterion is a biological measurement which determines whether organisms are impaired by effluent. If impairment is demonstrated, the test does not indicate what component of the effluent is causing the effect. Georgia-Pacific is required to conduct testing for acute and chronic toxicity twice a year. Current tests undertaken in May and October 2001 are representative of effluent conditions after Georgia-Pacific undertook conversion of the bleach plant to chlorine dioxide. Those tests demonstrate that Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the acute and chronic toxicity criterion since the conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching. Georgia-Pacific is also in compliance with the biological integrity standard, based on the most recent fifth-year inspection. Because of the flow characteristics and the characteristics of pulp mill effluent, the pollutants associated with the effluent are not assimilated as the effluent travels from the point of discharge, through Rice Creek, to the St. Johns River. The particulates associated with pulp mill effluent are so small or fine that they will remain in suspension and thus not settle out in Rice Creek. In addition, because Rice Creek is channelized, there is no sloping side that would enable the growth of vegetation that would filter the water. Furthermore, even if there was a sedimentation process occurring in Rice Creek, no additional sedimentation would occur after the system reaches an equilibrium point. Although Rice Creek does cause a small decrease in BOD through oxidation, Georgia-Pacific has compensated for that factor by the injection of oxygen in the effluent. Thus, the direct piping of effluent to the St. Johns River (as opposed to a discharge into Rice Creek, which flows into the St. Johns River) would not result in any significant increase in pollutant loading to the St. Johns River. In addition, the construction of a pipeline would take place only after additional technologies have been implemented to maximize pollutant reduction. Compliance with the Reasonable Assurance Standard Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances for the proposed permit to be issued for a discharge into the St. Johns River. This finding is based upon Georgia-Pacific's ability to meet the effluent standards described in the draft permit, and modeling results demonstrating that, with the proposed mixing zones for certain parameters, a discharge into St. Johns River, as designed, will not result in a violation of Class III standards. Mixing Zones In Section H of their Petition, Petitioners challenged the proposed mixing zones set forth in the proposed Permit. Petitioners generally alleged that the proposed mixing zones were "enormous" and that they failed to comply with certain rules restricting mixing zones. In their Petition, Petitioners articulated three theories to support the proposition that the mixing zones were illegal: first, that the mixing zones would include a nursery area of indigenous aquatic life, including beds of aquatic plants of the type listed in Rule 63-302.200(16); second, that the mixing zone, by itself, would lead to a violation of the minimum criteria in Rule 62-302.500; and third, that the mixing zones, or a combination of those mixing zones, would result in a significant impairment of Class III uses in the St. Johns River. Petitioners were authorized to amend their Petition to add additional allegations to paragraphs 17 and 67 of their original Petition regarding the mixing zone. Under those amendments, Petitioners alleged that Georgia-Pacific’s proposed amendment to the draft permit would (a) improperly expand the mixing zone; (b) fail to account for the length of the diffuser; (c) improperly substitute "transparency" for "color"; and (d) prevent isolation of transparency impacts from color in the discharge. However, there is no evidence which ties those allegations to any regulatory standard that would affect the proposed agency action. Petitioners also contended that color was a surrogate for chemical oxygen demand, as well as for substances that are alleged to cause chronic or acute toxicity. However, as shown by the testimony of Department witness Maher, the permit condition for "color" was a surrogate only for the transparency standard. No evidence to support a contrary inference was presented. Petitioners also made general allegations that the proposed mixing zones are illegal, without a clear indication of what is deemed illegal about the mixing zones. Although the Petition includes a general argument in opposition to mixing zones, Petitioners were unable to suggest a legal basis for alleging that the mixing zones were illegal. For example, Petitioners alleged that certain mixing zones are enormous but failed to articulate why they are so enormous as to be illegal. They did not allege that the Department had erred by allowing a larger mixing zone than Georgia-Pacific should have received under applicable rules. Indeed, such a position would be antithetical to Petitioners' allegations that Georgia-Pacific had failed to achieve water quality standards for a number of parameters. The accepted testimony establishes that Georgia-Pacific's proposed mixing zones will comply with Department rules. No persuasive evidence was presented to the contrary. Because the effluent quality will differ from present conditions after completion of the process improvements, the proposed mixing zones will not be final until after process improvements have been made, the operation has been stabilized, and the mixing zones have been re- verified. No mixing zones are authorized in the Administrative Order. The Administrative Order contains a table setting forth potential mixing zones that are used as a benchmark to determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. The table sets out a series of hypothetical mixing zones at 800 meters, that is, the maximum presumptive distance afforded without additional relief mechanisms. Because no mixing zones are proposed to take effect in Rice Creek, there can be no issue of "illegal" mixing zones in Rice Creek. Within a range of potential discharge flows, from 20 MGD to 60 MGD, water quality standards will be met within the area of the proposed mixing zones for all parameters for which mixing zones are required. Mixing zones are allowed by Department rules and are considered a part of Florida water quality standards. In the context of the Department's permitting review, if a modeling analysis shows that the concentration of a pollutant in effluent is greater than the water quality criterion, the Department will determine if the amount of dilution in the receiving water is sufficient to assimilate the pollutants of concern. The Department will then determine either the length (in the case of a river) or area (in the case of an estuary) of a water body that would be necessary to achieve compliance through dilution. Based on chloride levels, the St. Johns River at the area of concern would not be considered an estuary under Department rules. Each of the proposed mixing zones would be less than 800 meters in length (as allowed by Department rule) and less than 125,600 square meters in area (a limitation that would apply only if the area was an estuary). The proposed discharge will comply with all minimum rule requirements with respect to mixing zones, such as those for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and the absence of acute toxicity. Likewise, the proposed mixing zones will not impact any nursery areas for indigenous aquatic life. Nutrient Issues In Section I, Petitioners contested the Department's decision to not require effluent limits to prevent a violation of the narrative water quality criterion for nutrients. For reasons addressed in the undersigned's Order dated February 14, 2002, that issue is waived based because of Petitioners' failure to file a timely challenge to the WQBEL Technical Report. In addition, based on the findings set out below, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not violate the narrative standard for nutrients. Further, the evidence shows that effluent limits for nutrients are not presently warranted. Petitioners presented testimony that the St. Johns River may be nitrogen-limited or phosphorous-limited at different times of the year, which means that concentrations of one or the other would limit algae growth at different times of the year. Relative light levels, as well as the penetration of light, also affect algae growth. Georgia-Pacific’s treatment system requires the addition of ammonia because ammonia or nitrate is a necessary nutrient for the growth of bacteria in the treatment system. Ammonia and nitrate are both nutrients. Although there can be a conversion from one form to the other, that conversion does not affect the net loss or gain of nutrients. Although nutrient issues are of concern to water bodies, it is absolutely necessary in a biological treatment system to have sufficient nutrients for the operation of the system to treat parameters such as BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility is achieving a high level of treatment while managing its system at a minimum level of nutrient addition. Management of a treatment system requires attention not only to the influent and effluent, but also monitoring of conditions within the system itself to assure adequate treatment. Georgia-Pacific is continuing to refine its procedures for doing so. The State has adopted what is referred to as the "5- 5-3-1" (advanced wastewater treatment) limitation for municipal treatment plants that discharge to surface waters. This standard refers to five milligrams per liter for BOD, five milligrams per liter for suspended solids, three milligrams per liter for total nitrogen, and one milligram per liter for total phosphorous. This limitation has been in effect for many years and remains one of the most stringent state standards in the nation. Georgia-Pacific's facility would be in compliance with those standards for nitrogen and phosphorous. Effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill increases the concentration of total nitrogen in Rice Creek, relative to background conditions. However, because of the relatively higher flow of the St. Johns River, when the load from the mill is transported to the St. Johns River, the increase in nitrogen concentration is so small as to be imperceptible. Nitrogen loading from Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill on a long-term average (prior to upgrades of its treatment plant) has been measured at 1,196 pounds per day. The average loading at Buffalo Bluff, which is far upstream of Rice Creek and the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill, is 36,615 pounds per day. Additional nonpoint sources contribute approximately 12,000 pounds per day in the study area. Thus, the loading from the Georgia-Pacific mill represents a 2.4 percent increase in nitrogen levels on the St. Johns River, a difference that cannot be measured. The largest point source of nutrients in the lower St. Johns River is the Buckman wastewater treatment plant in Duval County. That facility does not have nutrient limits on its discharge permit. Rice Creek does not provide any treatment (as opposed to dilution) for nitrogen in Georgia-Pacific's effluent. A review of probability distributions for nitrogen concentrations upstream and downstream of Rice Creek demonstrated that Rice Creek had no influence on nitrogen levels in the St. Johns River. Phosphorous concentrations from the effluent, if discharged to the St. Johns River, would dilute rapidly, decreasing to .2 milligrams per liter within the water column, five to six feet below the surface, after discharge from the diffuser, below the area in which light is absorbed at the surface of the water column. Chlorophyll-A is a parameter that is typically used as a measure of phytoplankton in the water column. Concentration distributions for chlorophyll-A at Buffalo Point (upstream of Rice Creek) matched concentrations for the same parameter at Racey Point, a station far downstream of Rice Creek. This analysis confirms that the inputs coming into the St. Johns River System from Rice Creek do not have a significant influence on the water quality of the St. Johns River, with respect to nutrients. With a discharge coming directly to the St. Johns River, and with nutrient loading being the same as from Rice Creek, the nutrient loading would not influence the St. Johns River. The Department does not have sufficient information at the present to impose a nutrient limit on Georgia-Pacific. The draft permit accounts for this issue through a re-opener clause which would authorize a limit when that information is available, if such a limit is necessary. Allegations Regarding "Deformities in Fish" Section J of the Petition includes allegations that Georgia-Pacific failed to provide reasonable assurances regarding adverse physiological response in animals under Rule 62-302.530(62), and that Georgia-Pacific has failed to provide reasonable assurances that its discharge will not be mutagenic or teratogenic to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, or to human beings, under Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. Petitioners suggest that the permit cannot be granted as proposed because it lacks effluent limits for (unstated) substances that are alleged to create potential violations of the free-from standard. This argument is barred as a matter of law for the reasons stated in the Order dated February 14, 2002. In addition, based on the following findings, this argument has been rejected because Georgia- Pacific has met the reasonable assurances standard without effluent limits on those unstated (and unknown) substances that are alleged to cause violations of those rules. Petitioners presented evidence that paper mill effluent in general contains chemicals which could cause the masculinization of the females in certain fish species, as well as hormonal effects in males. However, witness Koenig did not offer any testimony that Georgia-Pacific’s effluent, in particular, contained such chemicals. Dr. Koenig had collected no data and had not conducted any field studies in Rice Creek to support his testimony; rather, he relied on articles published by others and provided by Petitioner Linda Young. In agency practice and interpretation of the free- from standard in Rule 62-302.530(62), Florida Administrative Code, the question of whether a change is adverse depends on the overall community or population of that particular species. Tellingly, Petitioners did not present any competent evidence, through Dr. Koenig's testimony or otherwise, that Georgia-Pacific's effluent presents the potential for adverse effects on the overall community or population of any species. Dr. Koenig testified at length from his reading of studies performed by other scientists regarding changes in the hormone levels and gonadosomatic index (the relative weight of gonads) of fish in the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Rice Creek. In his testimony, Dr. Koenig relied on two published articles to address conditions in the vicinity of Rice Creek, both of which were primarily authored by M. Sepulveda. One of those articles showed hormonal changes taking place in a laboratory study where largemouth bass were exposed to mill effluent. That study also showed a change in the gonadosomatic index in the subject fish. Dr. Koenig did not offer any opinion that such changes would be adverse or that they would affect the reproduction of those fish. The other study was a field study with samples of fish at various regions in the vicinity of Rice Creek. This study did not include any fish from Rice Creek, but did include fish from the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, as opposed to reference streams. The study showed lower levels of hormones in fish from the area of that confluence, but also showed similar effects at a reference stream 40 kilometers away. No testimony was presented to support the inference that the effects represented in the two studies were adverse, within the meaning of the free-from rule. Moreover, the data from those two studies were collected in 1996, 1997, and 1998, or before Georgia-Pacific converted its bleach plant to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. Therefore, Dr. Koenig had no data to support any theory that under current effluent conditions, Georgia-Pacific is producing or will produce compounds that would cause any changes of hormone concentrations in fish. With respect to the phenomenon of fish masculinization in Rice Creek, Petitioners' experts had no data to support a competent opinion on this subject. To support his testimony, Dr. Koenig only read one article that purported to demonstrate fish masculinization in 11-Mile Creek and the Fenholloway River, and one letter from an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District [Young Exhibit 8A] that referred to "external anatomical anomalies" near Georgia-Pacific discharge points. The article attached to that letter and included in Young Exhibit 8A addressed data collected in Escambia County, and does not address conditions in Rice Creek. Petitioners attempted to present the theory that the potential for endocrine disruption or fish masculinization resulting from paper mill effluent would violate the free-from standard. As a condition to issuance of the permit, the Department proposes to require Georgia-Pacific to obtain approval of a plan of study to analyze the potential for significant masculinization effects from the discharge. Under the proposed conditions, Georgia-Pacific is required to determine the minimum concentration at which such effects may be detected. By its terms, the proposed permit may be reopened to adjust effluent limitations or monitoring requirements if the masculinization study shows a need for them. Department witness Brooks acknowledged a general concern for endocrine disruption resulting from paper mill effluent. In particular, Mr. Brooks referred to studies which showed that paper mill effluent could cause the elongation of an anal fin in the females of certain fish species. However, Mr. Brooks observed that although this appeared to be a physiologic response, there was no evidence or reason to believe that this effect was an adverse effect. Reports regarding masculinization, that is, the elongation of anal fins in female fish, are suspect because (among other reasons) the studies do not account for variances that would be expected based on the independent variables of sex, age, and growth. In any case, the data from those reports do not demonstrate significant, adverse effects in exposed populations. A critical and unbiased review of the published literature shows that impacts of masculinization are biologically interesting but preliminary in nature. Department witness Maher observed that the masculinization effect occurs naturally, and that the Department's plan of study is intended to determine whether this natural phenomenon becomes problematic or is enhanced by activity at the mill. Initial information reviewed by the Department indicates that the phenomenon is no longer experienced when a mill converts to a chlorine dioxide (ECF) bleaching process, as Georgia-Pacific has done in converting to ECF. According to witness Brooks, the observed effect known as "fish masculinization" is not confirmed to result from endocrine disruption. The Department has concluded that it has reason to be concerned about the potential for fish masculinization. From the Department's viewpoint, it is not clearly understood what is causing this effect. It has been shown that there is a direct relationship between concentration (or dilution) and the observation of those effects. This conclusion is consistent with Dr. Koenig's testimony, which observed a decline in observed effects based on the dosage or concentration of effluent. The Department has reviewed evidence showing that, with dilution, the effect of fish masculinization "go[es] away." In the Department's analysis of the fish masculinization issue in the present permit, the Department is requiring process improvements that would reduce this phenomenon, if it exists, in Rice Creek. In addition, if the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River, the additional dilution would ameliorate the concern regarding fish masculinization, and the phenomenon will "go away." To give an even higher level of assurance that the resource will be protected, the Department is requiring a study to evaluate and confirm that the issue is resolved. The process changes required in the permit, the potential for further dilution in the St. Johns River if it becomes necessary, and the evaluations required in the permit condition render it very likely that any potential for fish masculinization will be mitigated. Thus, to the extent that fish masculinization could be deemed a violation of the free- from standard, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause the masculinization of fish in the St. Johns River. Petitioners did not offer any credible evidence establishing that any specific compound or substance would cause the alleged effects of endocrine disruption or fish masculinization. Indeed, Dr. Koenig acknowledged that he was unable to find in his literature search the mechanism or chemical that is alleged to cause fish masculinization. Likewise, Petitioners were unable to suggest any concentration of that substance which would lead to those alleged effects. Dr. Koenig expressed a belief that chlorinated organic compounds from the paper manufacturing process may be responsible for endocrine disruption. Dr. Koenig also opined that within the general process of paper manufacturing, the bleaching process in particular was a concern. To the extent that Dr. Koenig may have had a concern regarding endocrine disruption from his review of studies performed using data from 1996 through 1998, it is reasonable to conclude that this concern is ameliorated by Georgia-Pacific's conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. There is no evidence to establish a relationship between the presence or absence of dioxin and fish masculinization. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard (and BOD Concerns) In Section K, Petitioners disputed whether Georgia- Pacific had provided reasonable assurance of compliance with the adopted dissolved oxygen standard. The proposed permit contains different permit limits for BOD for winter and summer, because the impacts of discharges are different during those parts of the year. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility discharges mass loadings of BOD at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet discharge standards. A review of effluent data shows that even for the worst period for performance, Georgia-Pacific's effluent was well below the proposed permit limits for BOD. A review of BOD discharges over the period of January 2000 to August 2001 demonstrates a consistent ability of the facility to meet the proposed permit limits, as well as a general trend of improvement that reflects Georgia-Pacific’s upgrade of the treatment system. Georgia-Pacific will meet the minimum standards for dissolved oxygen in mixing zones. With additional process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will also experience additional environmental benefits in the reduction of chemical oxygen demand. N. Dioxin and "Related Compounds" As to dioxin, Petitioners alleged in Section L of their Petition that Georgia-Pacific may discharge dioxin in concentrations that could cause a violation of the free-from standard. The proposed permit includes a permit condition for a plan of study to assess levels of "TCDD" and "TCDF" in fish tissue in the receiving waters. Department witness Brooks was unaware of any regulatory authority to require fish tissue sampling for dioxin. Department engineer Kohn was also uncertain of any regulatory authority for the Department to test for dioxin in fish tissue. Mr. Kohn agreed with the proposition that when a proposed permit condition is not specifically authorized by rule or statute, the condition must be withdrawn if the applicant objects. However, in this case, Georgia-Pacific did not object to the inclusion of a permit limit of .014 picograms per liter of dioxin in its final effluent. As noted above, Georgia-Pacific established that under its current effluent conditions, following conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching, the facility is "non-detect" for dioxin. The Department does not have any adopted standards for fish tissue concentrations. Petitioners presented very little evidence of dioxin concentration in fish tissue following Georgia-Pacific's conversion to ECF bleaching, and they opposed the introduction of such data into evidence. A review of available data shows that there was not a statistically significant difference between the level of bioaccumulation of dioxin in fish tissue in Rice Creek versus a reference creek. The Florida Department of Health has concluded, based on review of prior fish tissue data, that a fish consumption advisory for Rice Creek was not warranted. Total Suspended Solids In Section M, Petitioners have alleged that TSS in the effluent would cause various environmental problems. However, Petitioners did not allege that TSS in the effluent would lead to a violation of water quality standards, and they did not present any accepted testimony or other evidence to support such a theory. There is no adopted water quality standard for TSS. According to the WQBEL Technical Report, effluent levels of TSS are generally comparable to background levels in the St. Johns River. The primary wastewater clarifier is designed to remove fiber or other settleable solids from the effluent before it travels to the secondary treatment system. Total suspended solids in Georgia-Pacific's effluent are primarily derived from biota in the treatment system, rather than fiber from the industrial process. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for TSS. The facility reliably discharges TSS at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet proposed effluent limits. A review of discharge data for TSS demonstrates that Georgia-Pacific would perform in full compliance with the proposed permit limits. Petitioners presented no evidence to the contrary. Petitioners likewise presented no evidence to quantify any impacts from TSS. Color, the Transparency Standard, and Related Issues Petitioners have also alleged that the color in Georgia-Pacific's effluent would lead to nuisance conditions in violation of Rule 62-302.500(1)(a). However, they did not allege any potential violation of the one parameter traditionally associated with effluent color: the Department's transparency standard. Elevated levels of color in the effluent reduces the ability of light to penetrate into the water column, with potential effects on the growth of aquatic plants. This is translated into a "compensation point," that is, the water depth at which the light level reaches one percent. The state transparency standard prohibits a discharge from causing a decrease in the compensation point of more than ten percent, relative to natural background. The rate of decrease of light within a water column is related to increased color levels. Analysis performed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants shows that a ten percent change in compensation depth corresponds to a seventeen percent increase in color above natural background levels. Under the proposed permit, color was used as a surrogate, or alternative measure, for compliance with the transparency standard. Color was not used as a surrogate for any parameter other than transparency. Georgia-Pacific will, with additional process improvements, see additional environmental benefits in reducing the color of its effluent. For the purpose of the application, Georgia-Pacific's modeling analysis assumed that based on process improvements, its effluent would have a color of 1202 pcu. EPA's technical team had opined that Georgia- Pacific would, with process improvements, achieve a reduction in color to 500 pcu. Georgia-Pacific had opined that the improvements would achieve a color of 1202 pcu. Department witness Owen opined that the color reduction would be in a range between those two figures. Petitioners did not present any contrary evidence as to the ability of additional process improvements to reduce effluent color. Accordingly, using the most conservative (least optimistic) figure, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that before a discharge to the St. Johns River would be authorized, it will reduce the color of its effluent to 1202 pcu. The proposed permit takes into account the potential that Georgia-Pacific's process improvements will achieve greater improvements in color than anticipated. Under the proposed permit, the Department would reduce the size of the proposed mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific demonstrates that the color of its effluent is lower than projected. The modeling analysis further demonstrates that based on a discharge to the St. Johns River, assuming an effluent color of 1202 pcu, the change in compensation depth is greater than ten percent in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser. A 734-meter mixing zone for transparency would be required for a discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River. The required area for such a mixing zone is 64,000 square meters. Antidegradation Review In Section P, Petitioners have generally alleged that the Department failed to conduct a proper antidegradation analysis. More specifically, they alleged that the proposed discharge would reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them. Because Georgia-Pacific presently discharges to Rice Creek, and because a separate relief mechanism (the Administrative Order) authorizes the discharge to Rice Creek, it appears that the antidegradation issues relate solely to the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River. If the relocation had resulted in degradation of the receiving water, the Department would have regulatory authority in its Rule 62-4.242(1)(c) to consider whether Georgia-Pacific could minimize its discharge through other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse. However, Petitioners failed to allege in their Petition that the Department misapplied that regulatory authority. Moreover, under Department practice, when a new discharge or relocation of a discharge will result in an environmental benefit, it is not necessary to conduct a review of other discharge options. The Department undertakes an antidegradation analysis in, among other scenarios, cases where a discharge will result in achievement of minimum water quality standards for a given designated use but will lead to an incremental lowering of water quality. The purpose of this analysis is to assure that the societal benefits of the discharge outweigh the cost of that incremental lowering. The proposed permit will not lead to the increase in discharge of any parameter, and the permit is more stringent and adds additional parameters or limits. In addition, there is a trend of improved performance for the treatment system. In the present case, the Department has concluded that the proposed project will result in a significant improvement in water quality by the reduction of pollutants associated with exceedences of water quality standards in Rice Creek. Regardless of whether the discharge remains in Rice Creek or is relocated to the St. Johns River, the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will lead to an improvement in water quality as opposed to a degradation of water quality. Based on improvements with respect to specific conductance parameters, the ability to relocate the discharge into the middle of the St. Johns River where better mixing will occur (relative to the confluence of Rice Creek), and anticipated improvements in grass beds, the proposed pipeline will lead to a net environmental benefit in the St. Johns River and Rice Creek. The project as set forth in the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will be clearly in the public interest because it will result in full achievement of water quality standards and full compliance with the designated use of the receiving water body. The project will result in a substantial reduction in pollutant loading in Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, regardless of the whether the discharge will be located in Rice Creek or in the St. Johns River. The Department adequately evaluated other discharge locations, alternative treatment, and disposal alternatives. Studies, including a land application pilot project, demonstrated that land application was not feasible based upon impacts to groundwater resources. In their Petition, Petitioners did not dispute the Department's analysis of those factors under applicable rules. Given these considerations, it is found that Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will meet water quality standards, and it is evident that Georgia-Pacific will not reduce the quality of the St. Johns River below its Class III designation. Further, the proposed discharge will be clearly in the public interest for the purpose of antidegradation analysis. Further, the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River is important to and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62-302.100 and 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Instead, the proposed discharge would provide a benefit to fish and wildlife, and their habitats. No persuasive evidence was presented that the proposed discharge to the St. Johns River would adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Indeed, the record demonstrates a beneficial effect as to those factors. The proposed discharge has not been shown to be inconsistent with the applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM plan). Rather, the evidence shows that the proposed discharge would promote the implementation of the applicable SWIM plan. Monitoring Issues Section Q in the Petition generally challenged the adequacy of proposed monitoring requirements. As to this issue, the monitoring conditions imposed in the proposed permit are sufficient to ensure compliance with the proposed permit. Petitioner Young's witness Gilbert agreed that the proposed monitoring conditions were adequate to determine the result of process changes, that the proposed monitoring conditions were comprehensive, and that those conditions were beyond what the Department normally required. The Department does not propose to engage in water quality sampling at the end of the diffuser or at the edge of the mixing zone because of the technical difficulties associated with such an endeavor. Instead, the process for determining compliance is to determine the condition of the effluent and simulate water quality conditions of the receiving water body under low-flow conditions (when the river would be most vulnerable to pollution discharges). Such an approach is more protective because it eliminates variables that may not be representative of worst-case conditions. The evidence shows that the size of Georgia- Pacific's facility renders it impracticable for Georgia- Pacific to compromise the integrity of sampling results, as suggested by Petitioners. Flow Limitations In their Petition, Petitioners also contended that the proposed agency action violates Rules 62-4.240(3)(a) and 62-620.310(9)(a) by failing to specify the volume of discharge or flows. Under Department practice, flow must be specified but is not necessarily limited. Flow was adequately specified in the proposed permit, where the facility is described as 40 MGD wastewater treatment facility with a 22 MGD expected average flow. Volume limits are indirectly set through the establishment of a mixing zone and through mass loading limits in the permit, such as the loading limits for BOD and suspended solids. When flow is increased and the concentration of the effluent remains constant, the flow would be limited by the mass limits in the permit. Furthermore, the pipe and diffuser will have a hydraulic limitation, that is, a physical limitation on the amount that can physically be discharged. The pipeline and diffuser are hydraulically limited to 60 MGD based on the current design. Over a ten-year period, Georgia-Pacific has shown a trend toward reduced effluent flow. For example, in 1991, Georgia-Pacific discharged just under 40,000,000 gallons per day (GPD). In 2001, the discharge was less than 24,000,000 GPD. As a result of water conservation measures, Georgia- Pacific has been able to achieve a substantial reduction in effluent flow even when it experienced increased storm water flow into the treatment system. Because of stormwater inputs into the treatment system, it is very difficult to set a flow limit on the discharge from a pulp and paper mill. Indeed, the Department does not typically impose volume limits on NPDES permits for pulp and paper mills. Where volume or flow limits are imposed on pulp and paper mills, they are necessary in order to assure compliance with a specific standard. The Administrative Order Georgia-Pacific has submitted plans and a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. No contrary evidence was presented, and no alternative construction schedule was proposed by Petitioners. In assessing a schedule to achieve compliance, the Department considered the time necessary to construct additional improvements as well as the reasonableness of the time period in light of Georgia-Pacific's capital investment. As part of this analysis, the Department also considered Georgia-Pacific's commitment to go beyond what they were legally required to do in environmental upgrades. The schedule of compliance is reasonable, given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required of Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific needs permission to continue its discharge to Rice Creek for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, and operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. The time period described in the Administrative Order will enable Georgia-Pacific to maximize the operation of the process improvements in order to determine if the discharge can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. Given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required in the permit and Administrative Order, the schedule of compliance set forth in the Administrative Order is reasonable. There is no present, reasonable alternative means of disposing of wastewater other than to discharge it into waters of the State. In their Petition, Petitioners contested the Department's general antidegradation analysis but did not allege that any alternative means of disposal were improperly overlooked. The Department does not have specific regulatory authority to require facilities such as Georgia-Pacific to consider re-use as part of its antidegradation analysis, as it does with domestic waste discharges. Nonetheless, the Department did look at re-use and land application and determined that they were not feasible alternatives. Although it was not specifically required to do so by rule, Georgia- Pacific had exhausted every reasonable means to re-use (rather than discharge) water from its facility. Under earlier authorizations, Georgia-Pacific was not required to achieve standards for color, conductance, and chronic toxicity in Rice Creek. The granting of an operation permit will be in the public interest. This is because Putnam County will suffer an adverse economic impact if the facility is shut down and there will be net environmental benefits achieved through compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Administrative Order. The Permit requires Georgia-Pacific to submit a written report to the Department if it appears that a mixing zone is needed for chronic whole effluent toxicity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order (1) issuing proposed permit number FL0002763 to Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as set forth in Department Exhibit 175, and with the change in the permit conditions as requested in Georgia-Pacific Exhibit 102 and proposed by the Department during the hearing, and (2) approving Administrative Order No. 039-NE as set forth in Department Exhibit 176. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, No. 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Jessica C. Landman, Esquire 1200 New York Avenue, Northwest Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Terry Cole, Esquire Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Teri L. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Thomas R. Gould, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent Leon County School Board should be issued a dredge and fill permit to excavate and backfill in connection with the installation of sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 1989, the Board submitted a permit application to DER for the dredge and fill permit which forms the basis for this proceeding. The project represented in the dredge and fill application consisted of installation of two sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette. Installation would be accomplished by excavating and backfilling two trenches, each approximately 50 feet long by four feet wide by two feet deep. The pipes to be installed in the trenches adjacent to Buck Lake Road are one 15-inch gravity main and one 14-inch force main. A total of 15 cubic yards of soil was proposed for excavation and replacement. The project area consisted of less than 100 square feet. The Alford Arm in the project's vicinity is a canal dredged in the 1920's and 1930's. Neither the Alford Arm nor Lake Lafayette constitute Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), instead these water bodies are Class III Waters. On April 14, 1989, DER staff conducted an inspection of the project site, completed a permit application appraisal of the project, and issued permit no. 371633191 for the project. On the same day, the permit was withdrawn when it was discovered that the document had been signed by an unauthorized official. On April 20, 1989, DER again issued permit no. 371633191 to the Board for the project. The dredging, pipe installation, and backfilling were subsequently completed. Water Quality Since the dredging and filling could potentially produce short-term turbidity in the Alford Arm as a result of sediment entering the water, a specific condition of the permit required the placement of a row of staked hay bales downstream from the project site prior to construction and thereafter until re- vegetation of the site had occurred. By compliance with this turbidity control measure, reasonable assurance was provided by the Board that violations of state water quality standards would not result from the project construction. The project did not cause any violations of DER water quality criteria for turbidity or any other water quality criteria. Numerous technological advances and safeguards built into the sewer lines and lift stations make probability of any leakage very remote. Petitioner's concern with regard to potential for leakage from the collection system lines and the lift stations to cause water quality problems in the Alford Arm is not supported by any competent substantial evidence of record regarding statistical frequency and probability of such occurrences. Further, there is no such evidence of infirmities regarding design soundness or the functional history of the pipe used in the project. Public Interest DER evaluated the project in accordance with the criteria of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, prior to issuance of the permit. Another review has now been completed approximately two years after completion of the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Likewise, the project has not caused adverse impacts on significant historical or archaeological resources. Similarly, no adverse impacts on the conservation of fish or wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats has or will result from the project. Interestingly, woodstorks have been observed feeding in the very vicinity of the project as recently as May 28, 1991, more than two years after completion of the project. No adverse impacts have or will be visited upon navigation or flow of the water. No harmful erosion or shoaling has or will result from the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The impacts of this dredge and fill project were temporary. The dredged and filled area has re-vegetated with the same species, pickerelweed and smartweed. Wetland functions of the site that existed prior to the project were minimal and have been re-established. Cumulative And Secondary Impacts Cumulative impacts from similar projects were not evidenced at the final hearing. There are no projects proposed which are closely linked or causally related to the dredge and fill project. The only non-speculative secondary impact from the project was possible leakage of wastewater from the collection system lines and lift station. The probability of such leakage is very low. Particularly in view of the geographical area, engineering design and manufacture of the pipes and waste collection system, such probability is speculative and minimal or non-existent in the absence of competent substantial evidence regarding statistical frequency of such an event. The construction of the sewage collection system with which the project is associated is a result of growth in the geographic area. While the project has not been established to induce growth in the area, such development would not affect Lake Lafayette since the collection system currently installed has a 400 gallon per minute capability, or the ability to serve 400 residential connections. Prior to issuance of the dredge and fill permit, 800 existing residential lots were platted along Buck Lake Road within two miles east and two miles west of the project site. Since the system could be upgraded to accommodate 1600 residential units, the potential increase that could result from the project in any event is an additional 800 residential units. If these additional residences are built at the very high density of one per quarter acre, these lots would cover only approximately two-thirds of a square mile or less than one percent of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin of approximately 80 square miles. Such development would have no measurable impact on Lake Lafayette.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of permit number 371633191 to the Board. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2752 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None Submitted. Respondent Board's Proposed Findings: 1.-17. Adopted in substance. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings: 1.-24. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Terri Saltiel 7769 Deep Wood Trail Tallahassee, FL 32311 Richard A. Lotspeich, Esq. John T. LaVia, III, Esq. P.O. Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Donaldson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett have filed an application for issuance of a permit to dredge and fill a small area in the littoral, or "near shore," zone of Gillis Pond, a "sandhill lake" lying in what is known as the "sandhill region" of Central Florida, generally northeast of Gainesville. The dredging and filling as now proposed would be on and waterward of two lakefront lots jointly owed by the permit applicants. They seek by their application, authorization to dredge and fill at only one site on the waterward margin of the two lots with that modified project area reduced in size to a dimension of 12 feet by 25 feet. Fifteen feet of the project would be waterward of the shoreline. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty of enforcing, as pertinent hereto, the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-3 and 4, Florida Administrative Code, enforcing the water quality standards contained therein as they relate to dredge and fill projects of this sort, with concomitant permitting jurisdiction over such projects. The permit applicants desire this dredge and fill permit in order to make a safe, comfortable swimming area for Mrs. Anderson's family and friends. Mrs. Anderson desires to remove the tree stumps, roots and vegetation existing in the littoral zone area of the above dimensions in order to make access directly from the shore more comfortable and pleasant, especially for small children who are unable to swim in the deep water off the waterward end of the existing dock. Mrs. Anderson already has a 56 foot dock extending from her property into the lake. The water is 7 feet deep at the waterward end of the dock and the littoral zone containing aquatic vegetation extends beyond the length of the dock in a waterward direction. The project area would extend waterward of the shoreline, a distance of 15 feet, and would parallel the shoreline approximately a distance of 12 feet. The littoral zone vegetation at the site, however, extends waterward from the shoreline 50 to 60 feet. The proposed area to be dredged is quite small in size in relation to the total linear shoreline of the subject lake of approximately 4,000 feet. The dredged material would be excavated to a depth of approximately 6 inches over that 12 by 15 foot area and replaced with clean sand fill. The dredged material removed from the site would be secured on an upland site such that nutrient pollutants from that dredged material could not be leached or carried back into the lake through storm water runoff. Approximately one-third of the shoreline of the lake is bordered by a marsh or wet prairie which is approximately as large in area as the lake itself. The dominant vegetative species in the project area and surrounding the lake, including the marsh, are submerged freshwater species listed in Rule 17- 4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, including maidencane, sawgrass and a rare aquatic plant, websteria confervodies. Gillis Pond is a Class III water of the state, although its water quality parameters, or some of them, clearly exceed in quality, the minimum standards for Class III waters. Gillis Pond is what is termed an "ultra- oligotrophic lake, which means that its waters are characterized by a high level of transparency and very low nutrient content, that is to say that they are essentially pristine in nature. An oligotrophic lake such as this is very sensitive to any addition of nutrient pollutants. Even a small addition of nutrients to such water can cause an imbalance in the fauna and flora which have evolved to become dependent upon a low nutrient aquatic environment. Specifically, the rare aquatic plant named above is very sensitive to any enhanced nutrient levels and thus serves as a barometer of the water quality in this body of water. The addition of any nutrient pollutants to the lake, even in small amounts, might alter the chemical balance of the water in a derogatory manner so that the websteria confervodies might be eliminated. The elimination of this species from the littoral zone vegetation band surrounding the lake would likely result in other forms of vegetation supplanting it, altering the balance and makeup of the community of fauna and flora native to the lake and possibly hastening the progress of the lake toward eutrophication and degradation. The present water quality in the lake is such that dissolved oxygen and other criteria are better than the Class III water quality standards. The vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake and extending out as much as 50 to 60 feet waterward performs a significant function in uptaking and fixing nutrient pollutants that wash into the lake from storm water runoff from the surrounding uplands. Inasmuch as 30 to 40 feet of this belt of littoral zone vegetation would remain waterward of the dredged and filled area if the permit is granted, the nutrient uptake function of the vegetation in the littoral zone would not be significantly degraded. There are two locations where littoral zone vegetation has been removed in a similar fashion and water quality and flora and fauna communities characteristic of an oligotrophic lake are still present and healthy. Further, there is an extremely low nutrient level in the lake at the present time, and no significant amount of nutrient pollutants are leached or washed into the lake through septic tanks, storm water runoff or other sources. There is no question that the project as proposed would result in some slight, transitory degradation of water quality in the form of increased turbidity and reduced transparency. Turbidity will be caused during and shortly after the dredging and filling operation itself, caused by stirring up of bottom peat or sediments and by removal of a 12 by 15 foot area of aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone of the lake. Turbidity curtains in still waters such as involved here, can substantially reduce the spread of turbidity caused by the stirring up of bottom material and can substantially reduce the period of its suspension in the water by containing it at the dredged site. The vast majority of the littoral zone vegetation surrounding and waterward of the area to be dredged will remain such that the nutrient uptake function will be essentially undisturbed, thus any adverse impact on water quality will be insignificant. In terms of cumulative effect of allowing a multiplicity of such projects, not even a 10 percent loss of the littoral zone band of vegetation in the lake, which would be the maximum possible loss if all riparian land owners were allowed a similar size dredged and filled area on the front of their lots, would cause a violation of Department water quality standards. Parenthetically, it should be pointed out that such riparian owners cannot be prevented by any water quality criteria in Chapter 403 or Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, from having access to the lake in front of their lots. Such human traffic will have the gradual affect of destroying a significant amount of the littoral zone vegetation on and waterward of those lots (which is a cause and result the Department is powerless to regulate). By confining the destruction of littoral zone vegetation to such a small area as that involved in the application at bar and thus guaranteeing adequate, comfortable access for the riparian owner, the survivability of the remaining critical littoral zone vegetation will be significantly enhanced.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett for a dredge and fill permit as described in the modified and amended application be GRANTED; provided, however, that turbidity curtains are used during all dredging and filling activity and for a reasonable time thereafter until turbidity caused by the project has settled out of the water column. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tim Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce K. Anderson and Thomas Barnett 6216-B, Southwest 11th Place Gainesville, Florida 32601 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Applicant, John E. Bravo, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dockage facility. The proposed facility will consist of a 910 foot pier with a "T"-shaped platform structure extending perpendicular in two directions from the seaward end of the pier, all of which is designed to accommodate 56 boat slips, restricted to the use of pleasure boats only. The proposed project site is located on the southeast side of "Long Point" and would extend into the waters of East Bay, which is a tidally influenced water body in Bay County, Florida. The project site lies in Class II waters of the State. The waters involved are not approved for shellfish harvesting, however, but rather are under a shellfish harvesting prohibition imposed by the Department of Natural Resources. The portion of East Bay involved also lies within the Intracoastal Waterway. The waterway is approximately 6,000 feet wide at the site of the proposed docking facility. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward. The bay bottom is characterized by profuse seagrass for approximately 500 feet waterward of mean high water. Beyond that point, the seagrass (Cuban Shoal Grass) dissipates and disappears. The first 400 feet waterward of the mean high water line at the location of the proposed dock, is shallow and not truly navigable. The water then deepens to approximately five feet at mean low water some 525 feet from the shore. This distance from the shore marks the beginning of the area where no significant amount of seagrass exists and where the boat docking slips and mooring pilings would be installed in a waterward direction down the remaining length of the proposed dock. The water depth continues to increase to approximately 20 feet at the proposed location of the end of the dock. The dock would be constructed of pilings driven into the bay bottom supporting the decking of the walkway portion and "T" portion of the dock. The "T" would be installed on the seaward end of the dock, perpendicular to the walkway portion of the dock with most of the boat slips installed and operated at that point. The length of the docking facility is dictated by the fact that the Applicant seeks to locate the boat slips in a manner so that all boats will be moored and operated well beyond existing seagrasses. In fact, the length of the dock is more than absolutely necessary to accomplish this purpose since water depth and avoidance of seagrasses could accomplished with the dock ending approximately 700 feet from the mean high water line. In an abundance of caution, however, in order to avoid the possibility of propeller dredging and prop wash damaging the bottom substrates and grasses, and since the Intracoastal Waterway is over a mile wide here, the Applicant elected to design the dock in the length and configuration proposed. Such will cause no unreasonable impediment to navigation. In this connection, the Applicant has agreed to post Coast Guard- approved safety lights on the dock which will warn boats of its presence in hours of darkness. Further, the dock does not extend far enough into the 6,000 foot wide Intracoastal Waterway to pose a hazard to barge and other boating traffic in the Waterway. Some of the Petitioner's witnesses revealed that shrimp boats pull their nets during shrimping operations closer than 900 feet to the shore line and in the vicinity of the grass beds. While the presence of the dock may alter the trawling pattern of shrimp boats and the operations of other commercial fishermen, as well as water skiing and boating by members of the public, this may in fact have a beneficial effect by promoting the public interest in preserving marine habitat and the conservation of marine resources by preventing some damage to the grass beds. Such marine grass beds are valuable nursery areas for fishes and other marine animals, the effects upon which must be considered in weighing the various statutory indicia of the public interest which must be satisfied before granting a dredge and fill permit. Further, because the dockage facility at issue would be an isolated one with no significant similar docks in the immediate vicinity, the likelihood that it would pose a navigational hazard to water skiiers, fishermen, shrimpers, and other commercial and recreational interests is rather insignificant. Water Quality The water quality issues posed by a project such as this typically involve the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, bacteriological quality, turbidity, oils, greases, fuel, paint or varnish, solvents and heavy metals, as contemplated by the below-cited rules concerning general surface water quality criteria and the specific rules related to Class II surface waters. The project site is located in Class II surface waters of the State. Those Class II waters are classified by the Department of Natural Resources as "not approved" for shellfish harvesting. The zone of the Class II waters of East Bay in which shellfish harvesting is not approved extends some two miles eastward of the project site. Marinas and dockage facilities such as this one, which will accommodate fairly large boats in significant numbers, typically pose potential pollution problems involving deposition of nutrients in State waters in the form of fish carcasses and offal, garbage and human wastes. Additionally, boats can pose pollution hazards because of attendant dumping of grease, oil and fuel residues in marina waters as well as the deposition of trash in various forms such as paper and plastic items as a result of human use of the boats and the marina facility itself. Perhaps the most severe potential problem is the deposition of human fecal matter into the water as a result of the flushing of marine heads on the larger boats, which the dockage facility will accommodate in the slips as designed. The fecal coliform bacteria which emanate from the deposition of human wastes into the waters around such a dockage facility can be concentrated in oysters and other shellfish to such an extent as to cause severe illness, permanent disability or even death in humans. Consequently, in order to avoid this problem in a magnitude which would violate the water quality parameter in the rule cited below for bacteriological quality, substantial measures must be taken with a project such as this to avoid the deposition of human wastes from the dockage facility itself and from the boats using the slips. In furtherance of this end, the Applicant proposes to allow no live- aboard vessels to be occupied over night while moored at the docking facilities. Live-aboard vessels are deemed to be those with sleeping accommodations and marine heads. The Applicant also proposes to employ a full-time dock master seven days a week, eight hours a day to ensure that all dockage users are familiar with dockage rules, and who would enforce them, especially that prohibiting any discharges from vessels using or docking at the marina. The rules would be incorporated in the dockage lease agreements. The dock master would be responsible for the clean up and correction of all unauthorized discharges. In view of the potential for sewage discharges from marine heads, even with sewage pump-out facilities and the other restrictions on the use of live-aboard type boats, the additional protective measure of requiring a sewage pump-out line and pump-out equipment, including a storage tank and a means to direct sewage pumped from boats into the upland sanitary sewer system, should be imposed as an additional condition. Additionally, the restriction against over night stays aboard boats, the discharge of marine heads into the marina waters and the requirement for use of the sewage pump-out system should be publicized on large, easily legible signs at various points on the pier so that all boat slip renters or users can be on notice of the restrictions and the dock master's and the Department's enforcement of them. Additional potential sources of nutrient and bacteriological degradation of the dissolved oxygen content and bacteriological integrity of the surface waters involved can be posed by the deposition of fish carcasses and parts, as well as food wastes and other garbage in the marina waters. In order to prevent this, the Applicant has proposed to provide fish cleaning stations located on the upland and to require all fish carcasses and other related wastes to be placed in upland containers and not disposed of in the Class II waters at the dock site. Additionally, waste containers will be located along the length and perimeter of the dock facility for garbage, with regular emptying of the containers enforced by the dock master to prevent spillage. In connection with the upland fish cleaning sites to be installed, the drainage waters or waste water from fish cleaning stations should be directed into an upland disposal system so that it may be ensured that the water does not get back into the Class II waters of the bay. In addition to the above measures, pump-out facilities and equipment will be provided by the Applicant for used engine oil removed from boats and oil and water from boat bilges. These wastes, under agreed-upon conditions, would be transported by pipeline to the upland to a storage tank pending proper disposal. Trash, garbage and other refuse will be deposited in dumpsters for removal by municipal garbage disposal services. No fueling facilities or fueling of boats will be allowed. Additionally, oil spill clean up materials will be maintained on the marina site in sufficient quantities to allow clean up of the maximum spill expected from the largest boat typically using the marina pursuant to the leases for the boat slips. In order to further lessen the possibility of spills of oils, greases and fuels, the permit should be conditioned (as should the leases) upon no boat maintenance being performed at the marina site other than minor engine adjustments. In this context, an additional enforcement measure will be in the boat slip rental agreements themselves. The agreements will contain restrictive provisions requiring lessees to properly handle and dispose of fish carcasses and wastes, used engine oil, bilge water and requiring them to comply with sewage pump-out and refuse disposal conditions enumerated above. Upon completion of the facility, the dock master will manage and accomplish maintenance of the various items of equipment, such as the pump-out facility, on an eight hour a day, seven day per week basis and will enforce the restrictive provisions incorporating the above conditions in the boat slip rental agreements. Those restrictive provisions should include putting the lessees on notice that violation of any of the conditions enumerated above and in the boat slip leases will result in a breach of the lease and removal of their vessel from the marina and reporting of the violation to regulatory authorities. The various expert witnesses agreed that the proposed permit conditions enumerated above, if enforced, would adequately protect water quality as to the above parameters at issue. The Class II water quality standards will not be violated by the installation and operation of the project as proposed, provided the above conditions are strictly enforced and adhered to. Mr. Jack Taylor, the expert witness for the Petitioner, agreed that the above measures would reasonably ensure that the marina will not cause pollution and contravention of Class II water quality standards, but feared that enforcement problems would prevent such conditions from prevailing. In view of the measures enumerated above which will be undertaken by the Applicant to ensure that water quality standards are adhered to, including the liberal use of warning signs for marina customers and slip lessees, the use of a full-time dock master to enforce the conditions and including the enforcement measure of putting the conditions as restrictions in the slip rental leases, it has been shown that the enforcement will be reasonably adequate. An additional and important enforcement measure can be incorporated into this project, however, by requiring the Applicant to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the marina and requiring a monitoring program under the auspices of the Department for at least a year of operation in order to ensure that the project operates as it is proposed under the above-delineated conditions. The Department has continuing enforcement power and the monitoring program would, with regular monthly inspections, allow early detection and correction of any water quality violations, to and including the voiding of the permit and the closing of the marina operation should violations prove severe and uncorrectable. 1/ Such a monitoring program and marina operation and maintenance plan should be required as a condition to granting of the permit. 2/ Finally, it should be pointed out that the area of East Bay where the project would be built is Class II shellfish prohibited waters. The proposed project itself will not likely adversely affect shell fishing to the extent of closing additional waters if the above water quality safeguards are imposed as conditions on the permit and on the marina operation. This is especially true because the boundary line of the shellfish approved water to the east is at least two miles away, which distance incorporates a substantial mixing zone in the open waters of East Bay to sufficiently dilute pollutants which might emanate from the marina or other sources to levels such that the shellfish waters presently open will not be subject to any further closures by the Department of Natural Resources, as a result of this installation. The primary reason the shellfish waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are closed to harvesting is the presence of the Military Point Sewage Treatment Plant which discharges its effluent into the waters of East Bay, such that the DNR's dye flow studies reveal that a 5.1 square mile buffer zone around that plant is necessary for closure to shellfish harvesting to ensure that the public health is not adversely affected by consumption of shellfish from the waters in that buffer area. That buffer area includes the proposed marina site. Additional significant pollution sources include fecal coliform bacteria, oils and greases and other contaminants associated with rainfall events and resultant urban runoff from the City of Parker and surrounding areas, including septic tank leachate and petroleum residues. These influences also currently add to the reasons why shellfish harvesting is precluded in the area of the proposed facility. It was not demonstrated that the addition of the marina and the boats operating under the above strict conditions will result in any additional closures to shellfish harvesting in surrounding, presently approved areas as a result of any water quality degradation posed by the subject project. Public Interest The public interest criteria-enumerated at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which are actually at issue in this proceeding concern: (1) whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, (2) whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including their habitats, (3) whether the project will adversely affect navigation, water flow or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, (4) whether it will adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in its vicinity, and (5) whether the current condition and relative value of the functions of the natural area involved at the project site will be adversely affected by the proposed activity. There is no issue or dispute raised concerning the permanence of the project for purposes of criteria number 5 under this subsection, nor as to number 6, concerning historical and archaeological resources. Concerning criteria numbered 1-4 and 7, of this subsection, it has been demonstrated that the project will not likely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others if constructed and operated according to the conditions delineated herein. Some members of the public testifying on behalf of the Petitioner objected to the interference they feared the dock would cause with their jogging along the shoreline and feared an impediment to their use of the area for water skiing. This is the only dock in this vicinity, however, and such interference is minor. It will be well lit in order to avoid impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness in terms of the public's ability to safely operate boats in the area. There is some potential for the project adversely affecting conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats in that, if boats are permitted to operate in the vicinity of the dock and use the dock for mooring, loading and unloading purposes, and the like, closer than 500 feet off shore, harmful propeller washing or dredging of the bottom sediments and seagrasses growing therein will result. If such erosion of the bottom and seagrass growth begins occurring, it will adversely affect and gradually destroy the area as a habitat for fish and other marine life, which is of particular importance since such Cuban Shoal Grass stands are quite beneficial as nursery areas for fish and other organisms. Thus, if boating activity were allowed unimpeded around the dock, including in the near shore area within 500 feet from the mean high water line, the resultant erosion and propeller damage to the seagrass beds in the bottom would indicate that, as to criteria 2 and 3 of the above subsection, that the project would not be in the public interest and would be contrary to the public interest. This same consideration is true with regard to the fourth criteria concerning whether the project adversely affects fishing and recreational values or marine productivity for similar reasons. If marine habitat is disrupted or destroyed in whole or in part in the vicinity of the dock due to erosion and other damage caused by boat and propeller contacts with the bottom or prop wash near the bottom, then as to this criteria, concerning marine productivity and recreational value, the project will be contrary to the public interest also. To the extent that nursery areas for fish and other valuable marine organisms are destroyed, the recreational value in terms of quality of fishing will certainly be diminished. The "current condition and relative value of functions" being performed by the area of marine habitat affected by this project must also be considered. In a like vein, this particular area constituting dense growths of seagrasses has a relatively high functional value as a marine habitat and, particularly, a nursery for marine animals. This current condition and value of the area should be accorded a fairly high status in weighing and balancing the various considerations used in determining whether the project is or is not contrary to the public interest. If the boats which are to use the marina upon its construction and operation are permitted inside the grass bed area, roughly within 500 feet of the shore, then clearly the considerations mentioned above will be the subject of adverse effects caused by the boats' operation which in turn is a direct result of the installation of this marina, the dock and the slips. In view of the reasonable likelihood of the project causing some of the adverse effects mentioned above, resulting from contact by boat propellers and boat hulls with the grass beds or erosive prop wash caused by operation of boats in water so shallow that the propellers are too near the bottom, the Applicant has agreed to a condition which will effectively remove boats from the seagrass bed area, provided it is strictly enforced. That condition would provide that boats and the slips in which they would be moored cannot be landward of 600 feet off shore of the mean high water line along the sides of the seaward extending dock. All boat slips are to be located seaward of that point. The Petitioners, however, raised a valid point that, the dock being so long, the natural tendency of boat operators would be to moor their boats along the sides of the dock as close into shore as boat operation is possible in order to more easily load and unload their boats. In order to prevent this problem from occurring, therefore, an additional condition should be imposed on the permit which would provide that the sides of the dock be enclosed by a fence out to the 600 foot mark and of such a configuration and type as to prevent boat operators from mooring boats to the sides of the dock and gaining ingress or egress from their boats on the dock shoreward of the 600 foot point mentioned above. In other words, if it is made impossible to enter or leave a boat from the dock in the area of the seagrass beds, this would substantially reduce the likelihood that the seagrass beds would be damaged by boats using the dock. Additionally, prominent signs should be posted on or in the vicinity of the dock announcing the necessity to avoid operating boats landward of the point mentioned above and the necessity of avoiding contacting the seagrass beds with boats or boat propellors. If this condition is adhered to and strictly enforced, as even Petitioner's expert witness concedes, it will prevent the chief source of adverse effects upon the public interest. An additional consideration in determining whether or not this project is contrary to the public interest concerns its effect upon navigation. This has already been discussed in the above Findings of Fact. Since this would be the only dock in the immediate area, it is found that the presence of the dock, even though it extends a significant distance seaward of the shore line, will still not pose a significant impediment to navigation. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, the public interest might be served in a positive way by the installation of the dock to the extent that it might prevent shrimp boats and other fishing boats pulling nets from using the shallow seagrass area which will help prevent uprooting and other damage to the grass beds caused by the nets and associated fishing gear. Finally, it should be pointed out that to a certain extent the project will positively serve recreational values and the public welfare, in the context of balancing the various public interest considerations, because at least half the boat slips will be reserved for public use and because the addition of such a marina or docking facility will enhance the public's ability to obtain recreational value from the State waters involved in East Bay by improving marine access to those waters for fishing, boating, skiing and other purposes. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that the project is not contrary to the public interest.
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 John E. Bravo for the dredge and fill permit at issue be GRANTED, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On May 3, 1978, the petitioner filed with the respondent an application for dredge and fill permits and a water quality certificate to allow petitioner to complete its planned residential community on and adjacent to Marco Island, Florida. the petitioner expended in excess of $100,000.00 in preparing the permit application. The proposed project involves some 4,000 acres of development on approximately 17,000 acres of land owned by the petitioner. On November 28, 1979, after seeking and obtaining additional information from the petitioner, the respondent issued its notice of "intent to deny" the permit application. The Department claims jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Section 17-4.28 and 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code. The nine page "intent to deny" specifically cites Rule 1704.28(3), Florida Administrative Code, and concludes that state water quality standards will be violated. Beyond that regulatory citation, the "intent to deny" does not specify by rule number which of the water quality standards the Department feels would be violated by the proposed project. However, the "intent to deny" does conclude that the area proposed for development will include "approximately 1,500 acres of uplands and approximately 2,600 acres of waters of the State, submerged lands of waters of the State, and transition zone of submerged lands of waters of the State. In discussing the overall impact from the project as a whole, the respondent notes that the intertidal shoreline areas are utilized by wading birds and that the mangrove tidelines provide a vital habitat for fish and wildlife. In discussing the specific work areas, the respondent concludes that the destruction of the extensive freshwater marsh system would eliminate a significant habitat intensely utilized by a wide variety of birds. The "intent to deny" further concludes that the development of the proposed work area would be expected to violate state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The respondent's "intent to deny" is the subject of a pending administrative proceeding between these same parties in Case Numbers 79-2471 and 80-683. In those proceedings the petitioner is contesting, inter alia, the respondent's application of the rules under challenge in this proceeding. Although petitioner challenges other rules of the Department, the testimony adduced at the hearing concerned only those rules relating to water quality standards; to wit: Rules 17-3.05, 17-3.08(4) and 17-3.09(3). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are an important gauge of the existing quality of water and the ability of a water body to support a well-balanced aquatic animal life. A concentration of at least 5.0 parts per million (or milligrams per liter) is needed to support a well-balanced fish population, and a concentration of 4.0 mg/1 is about the lowest which will support a varied fish population. There are numerous natural factors which affect the concentration of dissolved oxygen in surface water bodies. Such factors include physical transfer between the water and the atmosphere (aeration), the limit of a water body's ability to absorb oxygen (saturation value), the amount of oxygen used to decompose dead material, photosynthesis of aquatic plants and the actual vertical location of the sampling. These factors are influenced by many variables, such as wind, temperature, stratification, salinity, the season of the year, the time of the day, rainfall, water clarity, mixing and flushing. The level of dissolved oxygen can vary significantly in the same body of water during one twenty-four hour period. A balance of dynamic, natural processes causes dissolved oxygen levels to vary extensively in different water bodies and within the same water body during different times of the day and during different seasons of the year. Some of the water bodies in the Marco Island area contain dissolved oxygen values below 4.0 parts per million (or milligrams per liter) during at least a portion of a twenty-four hour period. This is due to natural, as opposed to manmade, causes. A water body containing levels of dissolved oxygen less than 4.0 milligrams per liter does not necessarily indicate a discharge of contaminants into that water body. The parties have stipulated that the Final Order rendered by the Department of Environmental Regulation in the case of Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 79-1602R (July 7, 1980), accurately represents the Department's position with respect to its authority to consider wildlife and other biological factors in reviewing permit applications pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact 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
