Findings Of Fact In 1984, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued surface water management permit number 48-00201-5 for a 515 acre project, Isleworth Golf and Country Club, located in southwest Orange County. The permit was issued to the developer, Isleworth Partners. Sometime after the permit was issued and the system was constructed, nitrate concentrations were detected in holding ponds BE-15 and 16. District staff speculated that the shallow ground water table was contaminated with residual nitrogen left from nutrient applications to a citrus grove previously on the site. They were concerned that the high nitrate ground water was seeping into the storm water storage ponds and would eventually be discharged into adjoining Lake Bessie, thereby affecting the water quality of the lake. Lake Bessie, along with other lakes in the region, was also experiencing rising levels. On March 24, 1988, Isleworth Partners submitted to the SFWMD its application number 03248-G, to modify the existing surface water management permit, to help prevent the water quality problems from occurring in Lake Bessie, as described above, and to ameliorate and mitigate against increased lake levels in Lake Bessie. It was not intended to provide flood protection for Lake Bessie. The solution proposed in the modification request, as well as in water use permit applications processed at the same time, was to retain substantially more water in storage ponds BE-15 and 16, and to recycle some of the water from those ponds for use in irrigating the golf course. There were no objections to the water use modifications which were processed with the surface water management permit modification, and the water use modifications were approved by the SFWMD governing board in June 1988. As they affect ponds BE-15 and 16, the water use modifications include pumping the ponds down to a new control level of 97 feet NGVD and using that water to irrigate the golf course. This process has already been implemented with beneficial results: the nitrate concentrations in the ponds have been reduced. The surface water management modification which is the subject of the application at issue is to raise the weir structure from 101.6 to 103 feet NGVD in pond BE-15 to provide complete retention of a 10 year/24 hour storm event without discharge to Lake Bessie from the pond. The under drain system at Pond BE-15 will also be plugged to prevent the existing permitted bleed down of the pond waters into Lake Bessie. This structural modification involves simple construction work and can be completed in one or two days. Ponds BE-15 and 16 are currently connected by an equalizer pipe, and will remain so. Under the modifications the ponds will be maintained (control elevation) at 97 feet NGVD through the use of existing permitted pumps. The maximum elevation of the ponds will be raised from 101.6 feet to 103 feet NGVD by the alteration of the weir. This means the waters in the ponds would have to top 103 feet to overflow and discharge, by way of an existing pipe, to the swales along Lake Bessie and thence into the lake. A 10 year/24 hour storm event is the amount of rainfall that will statistically occur in a 24-hour period once every ten years, or ten times in a 100-year period. The amount of rainfall in a 10 year/24 hour storm event is roughly seven and a half inches. The modification proposed by Isleworth Partners is intended to retain the runoff from that storm. Currently, under the system as permitted, only the first inch of runoff must be retained. This is about 2.4 inches of rainfall or approximately a 3-year/1-hour storm event. Substantially more water will be retained in Ponds BE-15 and 16 under the proposed modification. The staff of SFWMD recommended that the application be granted, with twelve standard limiting conditions and eight special conditions, including the following: * * * The permittee shall be responsible for the correction of any water quality problems that result from the construction or operation of the surface water management system. The district reserves the right to require that water quality treatment methods be incorporated into the drainage system if such measures are shown to be necessary. * * * (Isleworth Exhibit #3, p. 6) John Robertson, Donald Greer and Robert Londeree reside on Lake Bessie. John Robertson and Donald Greer are members and officers of a nonprofit corporation, the Petitioner in this case, Friends of the Lakes, Inc. These residents are concerned that the level of Lake Bessie has risen in the last few years and that it is becoming polluted. Long standing docks which had been primarily dry are now frequently under water. The residents have observed milky or greenish yellow water discharging from pipes from the Isleworth development. These residents, who are not parties to the proceeding, concede that, if the modification works as intended, the system will be improved and the impact to Lake Bessie Will be lessened. Petitioner, Friends of the Lakes, Inc., questions the reliability of the pumping system to maintain the 97.0 foot control elevation. If the ponds are maintained at a control level of 97.0 feet, the 10 year/24 hour storm water will be retained. If, however, through a series of smaller events, the level is higher than 97.0 feet, less capacity will exist, and the water will discharge sooner to Lake Bessie. The current permitted pump operates at 375 gallons a minute. Depending on whether the pump is operated continuously or part-time, it would take from four to twenty days to pump down the pond from a maximum 103 feet to the 97 foot level. The District found the pumping system to be acceptable at Isleworth because the development has a full-time maintenance staff of 35 people, of whom three work on the pumping system. A maintenance supervisor checks the pumps daily, and the developer has an agreement with a pump company to replace the pump, if needed, within four to six hours. The system is considered reliable and the increased pond holding capacity will insure that more water will be retained than under the existing permitted system. Stephen Miller is the professional engineer whose firm prepared the application for modification and the original application for the surface water management permit. He is aware of some changes in the project as constructed which differ from his design for the original system. These changes relate specifically to grading on the golf course and not, as suggested by Petitioner, to the operation of ponds BE-15 and 16. Stephen Miller believes that the modifications will do exactly what they are proposed to do. The application for the modifications took into account the existing conditions which differ from the permitted construction plans. Ronald R. Potts testified for Petitioner as an expert in geology and surface and ground water hydrology. He agrees that the application for modification meets all requirements of the SFWMD with the exception of a single standard condition: * * * 3. The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition, the permittee shall obtain all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit (Isleworth Exhibit #3, P. 6.) The district staff report recommending approval for the modification request was sent to Orange County for its review and comment. Orange County made no objections. Within Orange County it is the engineering department which is responsible for the implementation and interpretation of the Orange County subdivision regulations as they apply to storm water management. The SFWMD does not attempt to enforce other agencies' requirements. The Orange County Engineer, George Cole, determined that neither section 10.1.2 nor section 10.4.4(D) of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations were applicable to the modification proposed by Isleworth. Section 10.1.2 requires that recharge to the Floridan Aquifer, where soils are compatible, shall be accomplished by providing for retention of the total run off generated by a 25 year frequency, 24 hour duration storm event from the developed site. Section 10.4.4(D) of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations requires that a pond design detain a 100 year storm event when discharge into a lake without a positive outfall is proposed. When the County first approved Isleworth's Planned Development, it set a specific requirement that the storm water management system retain the first inch of runoff and detain the difference between pre-development and post- development discharge for a 25 year/24 hour storm. "Retention" of storm water means that the water must be held on site and disposed of by some means other than discharge. "Detention" requires only that water be held back for a period of time before discharge. The Isleworth property is not located in a prime recharge area, as under its soils is a highly impermeable lens, commonly called "hardpan." Lake Bessie has a positive outfall, a pipe connecting Lake Bessie with nearby Lake Down. Although the pipe was plugged with debris for a period of years, it has been cleaned out and the potential exists for outfall from Lake Bessie in flood conditions. The County's 100 year/24 hour detention requirement would still allow the ponds to discharge more water to Lake Bessie than the proposed 10 year/24 hour retention design, and is, therefore, less restrictive. Lake Bessie presently is one of Florida's most pristine lakes with crystal clear water that is ideal for recreational purposes. The natural dynamic state of lakes is that over a period of time they evolve from oligotrophic, with clear water and a balanced system; to mesotrophic, with less water clarity, more nutrients, increased algae and less desirability for human use; to a eutrophic state, with even less clarity, choking vegetation, less fish and less pleasing appearance and utility. This occurs in a natural state as lakes fill in with decaying matter from the shore. Petitioner claims that discharge from Isleworth will hasten the death of the lake. Phillip Sacco testified for the Petitioner as an expert biologist and limnologist (one who studies fresh bodies of water). He performed a modeling analysis to determine the amount of phosphorus being discharged into Lake Bessie and he opined that the Isleworth development will cause Lake Bessie to change to a eutrophic state. A significant component of his analysis was his assumption that 920 acre-feet of water would be discharged into Lake Bessie as a result of the modification. (transcript pp. 557-558). The 920 acre feet is actually the total amount of water which enters Lake Bessie from the entire Lake Bessie basin, not just from the Isleworth property, and includes both surface water (2%) and ground water (98%). The analysis is discredited by the false assumption. Mr. Sacco also theorized that the interaction of nitrogen and phosphorus precipitated by the change in land use occasioned by the Isleworth development would produce deleterious effects on Lake Bessie's water quality: "Nitrogen is the dynamite; phosphorus is the fuse and the land use change of Isleworth is the match." The permit modification application at issue does not relate to a land use change. The change from orange groves to residential development occurred years ago and has already been permitted. In fact, the land change providing the ignition in Mr. Sacco's vivid metaphor is just as likely in the even earlier cultivation of the groves and use of nutrients in their production. The single result of the modification at issue will be less water being discharged into Lake Bessie than is currently permitted from the system, thus conserving the water quality present in the lake. The residents who testified are not parties to this proceeding. Although two of them established they are members and officers of Friends of the Lake, Inc., no evidence was produced regarding the corporation, its legal existence or purpose.
Recommendation Based on the above it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that a final order be issued granting the application for permit modification, and denying Isleworth Partners' request for costs and attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX Case NO. 88-3056 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: 1-2. Adopted in part in paragraph 9. However, testimony on the dying trees was excluded as beyond the witnesses' expertise. 3-4. Adopted in part in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as not based on competent evidenc. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in part in paragraph 10, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the evidence. The pumps already exist and are permitted. Rejected as irrelevant Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejeceted as unsubstantiated by competent evidence; the proposed fact is also too vague and ambiguous to properly address. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, or unsupported by competent evidence. 14-15. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and irrelevant. Adopted in part in paragraph 16; the contribution by the development is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Addressed in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 25-31. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as testimony summarized rather than findings of fact. Rejected as unecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: ISLEWORTH PARTNERS Adopted in paragraph 1, except the finding regarding the existing system meeting district requirements is rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 2 and 3. 3-4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 5 and 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 13. Included in conclusion of law #6. Adopted in paragraph 13. 14-19. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 14 and 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. 22-25. Adopted in part in paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 4, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 28-31. Adopted in part in paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 32. Adopted in paragraph 18 and in conclusion of law #2. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 7. 5-6. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 14. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Alan Cox, Esquire Bogin, Munns & Munns 105 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 Chris H. Bentley, Esquire W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 William Doster, Esquire Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, et al., PA P.0. Box 2809 Orlando, FL 32802 James K. Sturgis, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Centex Homes is entitled to the issuance of an environmental resource permit to construct a 2665 square-foot boat dock and authorization of a lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land in the portion of the Intracoastal Waterway known as Lake Worth Lagoon in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact In this case, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) has proposed to issue to Respondent Centex Homes (Centex) an environmental resource permit (ERP) and authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. The purpose of the ERP and lease authorization is for Centex to construct a dock to serve a multifamily development known as Ocean Cay. Ocean Cay is a 56-unit townhouse development located on a five-acre parcel in Hypoluxo, Florida, bordered on the west by U.S. Highway 1, on the east by the Lake Worth Lagoon, and on the north and south by developed residential areas. At the time of the hearing, Centex had closed on the sale of 50 of the residential units, was finishing construction of the final six units, and had entered into contracts to sell three of these six units. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a Class III water and is not an aquatic preserve. The Intracoastal Waterway channel is in the middle of the lagoon. The proposed dock would be about 1.5 miles north of the South Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Boynton Inlet) and 13 miles south of the Lake Worth Inlet (a/k/a Palm Beach Inlet). As measured from the project location to the opposite shoreline, the length of the dock is more than 25 percent of the width of the waterbody. Petitioner Michael C. Brown resides at 131 Las Brisas Circle, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenor O'Brien resides at 124 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. Intervenors Evlyn and Vern Hakes reside at 140 Park Lane East, Hypoluxo, Florida. As stipulated by Respondents, Petitioner and Intervenors have standing, so this Recommended Order will not restate the substantial evidence in the record of the standing of Petitioner and Intervenors. Three of the objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors involve procedural issues that are easily dismissed on factual grounds. The first objection is that Centex lacks the requisite equitable interest in the upland to obtain a lease of sovereign submerged land. The second objection is that the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association lacks the financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the performance of all permitting obligations, as they may arise in the future. The third objection is that District staff, not the Governing Board of District, issued the proposed agency action on the ERP. As for the first procedural objection, Centex acquired the parcel by special warranty deed, which vests fee simple interest in Centex and contains all the customary warranties of title. The title insurance policy obtained by Centex for the parcel insures fee simple interest in Centex, subject to undescribed reservations contained in the deed from the Board Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees), any part of the parcel lying below the mean high water line, and public rights "to use the waters over the submerged land lying adjacent to or within the Intercoastal [sic] Waterway for boating, fishing, swimming and other public purposes, together with the rights of the State of Florida and United States to regulate the use of the navigable waters." Not only does Centex enjoy full beneficial ownership of the upland, subject to the rights of its grantees who have purchased townhouse units, but Centex's title extends approximately 250 feet waterward of the mean high water line by operation of a deed from the Trustees to a predecessor in interest of Centex. If the ownership of submerged land between the submerged land for which an applicant seeks a lease and adjacent uplands also owned by an applicant has any effect at all, it only emphasizes the legitimate, nonspeculative interest of such an applicant in obtaining the sought-after lease. As for the second procedural objection, Centex is a sophisticated land-development entity with ample financial, legal, and administrative resources to ensure the satisfaction of any permitting obligations imposed upon it in connection with this case. At present, Centex controls the Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association. So, at present, the concerns of Petitioner and Intervenors about the ability of the homeowners' association to satisfy its obligations are unfounded. It is true that, upon the closing of the sale of sufficient units, Centex will transfer control of the homeowners' association to the homeowners. The record does not describe the financial, legal, and administrative resources of the homeowners' association following the withdrawal of Centex, but they will presumably not approach the substantial resources of Centex. District claims that Centex may not transfer the ERP without District's approval; however, ERP Special Condition 2 identifies the operating entity responsible for the docking facility as Ocean Cay Homeowners' Association, even though the ERP identifies the applicant as Centex. Fatal to the argument of Petitioner and Intervenors, though, are the facts that the proposed lease of sovereign submerged land is for only five years, a failure to discharge permit obligations that should be incorporated verbatim into the lease militates against any lease renewals, and the removal of the dock would substantially cure any deficiencies in its maintenance. As for the third procedural objection, District staff, on November 21, 2003, proposed to issue a standard general ERP for the construction and operation of a 2665 square-foot docking facility with nine boat slips for use by the residents of Ocean Cay and to approve the lease of 7807 square feet of sovereign submerged land under and surrounding the docking facility. Staff issues a proposed standard general ERP when a permit does not conflict with existing law or policy or a work of the District. District's Governing Board issues a proposed standard individual ERP in the relatively rare case in which a permit conflicts with existing law or policy or a work of the District. Again, the objections of Petitioner and Intervenors lack factual support. Here, the Governing Board, not staff, will receive the Recommended Order and issue the Final Order. So, as Petitioner and Intervenors wish, the Governing Board, not staff, will take the final agency action in this case. Under these circumstances, the record reveals no harm in the fact that District staff issued the proposed agency action. The remainder of the ERP provisions bears on the substantive objections raised by Petitioner and Intervenors. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 9 provides: A permanent sign shall be installed at the docking facility entrance to notify boat owners that mooring at the docking facility shall be limited to no more than a total of nine vessels. Vessels moored in slips 1-2 and 7-9 shall be limited to outboard powered vessels, not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 shall be limited to not more than 27 feet in length as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels moored in slips 3 and 6 are not limited to outboard power. Vessels moored in slips 4 and 5 shall be limited to 36 feet in length, as reported by the manufacturer exclusive of engines and any bow pulpit. Vessels in slips 4 and 5 are not limited to outboard power. Slips are identified by number in the discussion below. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, ERP Special Condition 10 provides: "Dock, walkway, and seagrass sign pilings shall be constructed of plastic, concrete or greenheart, non-CCA treated wood or wood wrapped in 30 to 60 mil pvc." ERP Special Condition 11 provides that construction of the dock shall be in accordance with the locations and dimensions shown on the enclosed exhibits. The referenced drawings depict the adjacent upland, submerged bottom, and proposed dock. The drawings describe sufficient detail of the adjacent upland. The north and south property lines of the 190- foot wide parcel run due east and west. At mean high water, the parcel's shoreline runs about 210 feet in a south-southwesterly direction from the north property line. Waterward of the mean high water line is a thin band of sand, varying portions of which are exposed between mean high water and mean low water. The drawings describe the submerged bottom in great detail as to seagrass and reasonable detail as to water depths. Waterward of the beach is a band of Halodule wrightii (shoal grass). The drawings describe the shoal grass in this area as "sparse." The drawings depict mean low water depths along three transects at 25-foot intervals, starting roughly at the landward commencement of the shoal grass. (All water depths are based on mean low water.) If the property lines were extended into the water, the north transect is 25 feet south of the north property line, and the south transect is 25 feet north of the south property line. The middle transect is an equal distance between the north and south transects. Along the north transect, the band of shoal grass is about 25 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band narrows to about six feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of the band of sparse shoal grass, according to the drawings, is a band of "mixed Halodule and sparse Johnson's." The reference to "Johnson's" is to Halophila johnsonii (Johnson's grass), which is a rare species of seagrass that is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as threatened. 50 C.F.R. § 17.12(h). Johnson's grass is found only on the east coast of Florida from the Indian River Lagoon to Biscayne Bay and is a fragile species of seagrass. The band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass reflects the same pattern as the shoal grass closer to shore: thinner at the north and south ends and wider in the middle. Along the north transect, the band of the two species is about 162 feet wide. Along the south transect, the band is about 212 feet wide. Along the middle transect, the band is about 240 feet wide. Waterward of the middle band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, according to the drawings, is "scattered isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." "H. Decipiens" is Halophila decipiens (paddle grass). Waterward of the north and south ends of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass are triangular-shaped areas of "sparse Johnson's." Along the north transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 75 feet wide. Along the south transect, this band of sparse Johnson's grass is about 50 feet wide. Waterward of these bands of sparse Johnson's grass is "scattered, isolated blades of H. Decipiens and [Johnson's grass]." Measured from the mean high water line, the band of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass extends about 275 feet along the north transect, 312 feet along the middle transect, and 300 feet along the south transect. Water depths are shallow throughout almost the entire project area. Starting from shore, water depths are almost entirely less than 1.0 feet within the area of sparse shoal grass, although depths reach 1.2 feet along the middle transect. Proceeding waterward along the north transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 0.7 feet at the landward end to 2.2 feet at the waterward end. Proceeding waterward along the middle transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.2 feet to 4.2 feet. Proceeding waterward along the south transect, the depths within the area of mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass range from 1.0 feet to 2.7 feet. The water continues to deepen in the triangular-shaped areas of sparse Johnson's grass, through which the north and south transects run. Along the north transect, the water depths range from 2.2 feet to 3.1 feet. Along the south transect, the water depths range from 2.7 feet to 3.6 feet. The drawings depict depths waterward of the start of scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. These reported depths extend to a point roughly parallel to the end of the proposed dock along the north transect, about 12 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the middle transect, and about 37 feet waterward of the end of the proposed dock along the south transect. Along the north transect, the depths remain constant, at about 3.5 feet, until the most waterward 25 feet, along which the water deepens 0.5 feet to 4.1 feet. Along the middle transect, the depths deepen about 0.5 feet to around 5.0 feet for about 75 feet, then deepen to 5.4 feet a few feet landward of the most waterward portion of the dock. About 10 feet waterward of the end of the dock, the depth reaches 5.7 feet, which is the deepest reported depth in the project area. Along the south transect, the depths deepen about one foot over the first 100 feet waterward from the start of the scattered, isolated blades of paddle grass and Johnson's grass. From a point parallel to the end of the dock, the water along the south transect deepens another 0.5 feet to about 5.2 feet. The drawings also describe the proposed dock in great detail. The dock, oriented due east and west, runs a distance of 420 feet from its landing, at the mean high water line, to its waterward terminus. The dock is four feet wide, except for a 10-foot long section, at about midpoint, that is six feet wide to facilitate wheelchair access. At the urging of District, to reduce seagrass impacts, Centex moved the dock ten feet south and extended it ten additional feet into deeper water. Because of the former of these modifications, the dock runs ten feet south of the middle transect. The main deck of the dock is grated, so as to allow at least 46 percent of the light to pass through it, from the waterward extent of the sparse shoal grass to the waterward extent of the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, which is a distance of about 250 feet. Although the drawings specify only a value of 46 percent light transmissibility, testimony established that this criterion would require the use of fiberglass decking material. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the dock, in addition to its length, is its height. The deck is five feet above mean high water. Mean high water is 1.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Mean low water is -0.8 feet NGVD. Five decks run perpendicular to the main deck--three on the south side and two on the north side--to form the slips at the waterward terminus of the dock. The most landward of these decks is four feet wide and 30-feet long and runs south of the main deck, at a point about 330 feet waterward of the landing. Two more decks, both of the same dimensions as the first deck, join the main deck at a point about 375 feet waterward of the landing. Thirty-eight feet separate the two southern decks, so that the two slips created between them (Slips 9 and 8, from landward to waterward) each is 18-19 feet wide. The most landward slip formed north of the main deck (Slip 1) is also 18-19 feet wide. Two pilings north of the main deck and two pilings south of the main deck define these first three slips. The remaining perpendicular decks form the terminus of the entire dock. These decks are eight-feet wide and run 38 feet north and 38 feet south of the edges of the main deck. The four slips immediately landward of these decks are 18-19 feet wide. Moving clockwise from the northwest corner, these slips are Slips 2, 3, 6, and 7. The remaining two slips are waterward of the eight-foot wide deck. The northern slip is Slip 4, and the southern slip is Slip 5. According to the drawings, the waterward extent of the proposed lease is 18 feet waterward of the waterward end of the dock. The waterward extent of the proposed lease is 425 feet from the landward end of the Intracoastal Waterway channel (the 415 feet shown in the drawings is wrong), which, as established by testimony, is 125 feet wide at this location. The drawings also depict a 42-inch high handrail running from the landing to the most landward perpendicular deck. The purpose of the handrail, whose vertical slats are eight inches apart, is to discourage mooring of vessels to the main dock landward of the slips. Every 50 feet, at the base of the handrails on either side of the dock, is a sign prohibiting docking, mooring, loading, or unloading of vessels. At the terminus of the dock, the drawings show a rock crib structure that rises about one foot from the submerged bottom along the entire 80-foot length of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Apparently, the rock crib is eight-feet wide, so that it extends, beneath the surface of the water, under the entire area of the eight-foot wide perpendicular deck. Extending above the rock crib, along this 80-foot long deck, is a wave attenuator. The drawings also depict a couple of seagrass warning signs north and south of the dock, about 20-30 feet waterward of the waterward extent of the sparse Johnson's grass, at the north and south portions of the project area, and the mixed shoal grass and sparse Johnson's grass, in the middle of the project area, just a few feet north of the dock. The drawings also show pilings at a minimum of 10-foot intervals along the entire length of the main deck, as well as pilings for the perpendicular decks at the dock's terminus. Special Condition 12 prohibits fueling facilities or hull-painting or -cleaning at the dock. Special Condition 13 prohibits liveaboards. Special Condition prohibits subleasing of the docking facilities and limits their use to residents of Ocean Cay. Special Conditions 14 and 15 detail various manatee- protection provisions. Special Condition 19 requires the implementation of a turbidity-control plan during construction. Special Condition 18 prohibits construction under the ERP until the Department of Environmental Protection has issued a submerged land lease. As amended at the final hearing by District and accepted by Centex, Special Condition 20 requires Centex to maintain at least one trash receptacle at the terminus of the dock. The District staff report states that Centex has minimized the impacts of the project by reducing the length of the dock from 550 feet and its capacity from 22 slips. The staff report notes, as mentioned above, the relocation of the dock ten feet to the south and ten feet waterward, both changes to reduce impacts on seagrasses. The District staff report states that manatees probably use the area of the project for travel and foraging nearshore seagrass beds. Concerning the lease of sovereign submerged land, the District staff report acknowledges the waterward extent of Centex's ownership of submerged lands. As for the sovereign submerged land, the District staff report states, without explanation, that the docking facility is not more than 25 percent of the width of the "navigable portion of the waterbody," pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)3, and is more than 100 feet from the federal navigation channel, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(4)(a)4. The District staff report attaches "Recommended Special Lease Conditions for Ocean Cay." These include a restriction that vessels moored at the dock clear the submerged bottom by at least one foot at all times while moored. Other provisions correspond to the special conditions attaching to the ERP, as described above. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of the proposed activity requires three determinations: first, does the proposed activity, unmitigated, adversely impact surface waters; second, if so, has Centex reduced or eliminated all such impacts through design modifications to the extent practicable; and third, if so, but if net impacts remain, has Centex adequately mitigated these net impacts? Absent mitigation, the construction of a 420-foot dock covering 2665 square-feet of water adversely impacts the water resources, most obviously by the immediate destruction of the seagrasses occupying the area in which at least 80 pilings will be installed and by the gradual destruction of the seagrasses that will be shaded by the dock and lose the light necessary for survival. Centex has incorporated into the proposed dock design all practicable modifications that could eliminate or reduce these adverse impacts to the surface waters. Centex has proposed a dock that is narrow, high, translucent, and nontoxic. To minimize the risk of prop dredging of the seagrass and bottom sediments, the dock's length and railings would limit mooring to relatively deeper water, and the boat-length restriction would effectively limit the reach of prop dredging. Even after these design modifications, however, adverse impacts to the surface waters remain that Centex must mitigate. The ultimate issue, then, is whether Centex has adequately mitigated the remaining impacts of the proposed activity by proposing sufficient affirmative acts to offset the remaining adverse impacts. Strictly speaking, mitigation consists of activities that are unnecessary for the desired activity--here, the construction of a dock--but are performed to offset the adverse impacts of the desired activity. In this case, Centex proposes three mitigation activities: the construction of a rock crib, the installation of a wave attenuator, and the erection of two seagrass warning signs. The adequacy of this proposed mitigation requires identification of the specific impacts to the surface waters and the efficacy of the mitigation in offsetting these impacts. As cited in the Conclusions of Law, the public-interest criteria set forth the elements requiring consideration. Except to the extent discussed in navigation, the dock will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others. The narrow, long dock, which restricts mooring activity to its terminus over 400 feet from the shoreline, has no impact on the riparian rights of adjacent or nearby upland owners. Thus, no mitigation is necessary for this criterion. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The most immediate impact of the dock is upon the seagrasses that presently grow on the bottom. Seagrasses, which are among the most productive communities known to nature, are vital to the health of the Lake Worth Lagoon. Seagrasses perform numerous functions important to the surface waters and, specifically, the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats: shelter for small fish and shellfish; food for a variety of small and larger organisms, including manatee and sea turtles; stabilization of bottom sediments, which improves water clarity; recycling of nutrients, including nitrogen--an important function for the water quality of the nitrogen-limited Lake Worth Lagoon; and formation of a substrate on which epiphytes may attach and provide food for a variety of organisms, including manatee and sea turtles. The mitigation activities offset some, but not all, of the functions provided by the seagrass that are lost by the construction of the dock. The rock crib probably will replace the function of the seagrass in stabilizing sediments. The rock crib probably will replicate some of the shelter function of the seagrass, although nothing in the record would support a finding that the crevices of the rock crib provide exactly the same shelter as the seagrass patches that will be destroyed by the dock. Thus, there is no basis to assume that the shelter functions of the seagrass are replaced by the shelter functions of the rock crib. Undoubtedly, the rock crib will not replace the food function of the seagrass. Some predators may find the same juvenile fish in the rock crib as they have found in the seagrass, and some organisms may find the same epiphytes attaching to the rock crib as they have found attaching to the seagrass. However, the organisms, such as manatee and sea turtles, that eat the seagrass itself will find the rock crib a poor food substitute. Additionally, the rock crib will perform none of the nutrient-fixing that seagrasses perform. The rock crib thus fails to perform the vital functions of seagrass in providing food for important species, such as the manatee, and fixing nutrients, which is important to improving or maintaining water quality. The wave attenuator is a potentially useful form of mitigation. Although a slight over-generalization, the seagrass thins to the point of near disappearance at a point in which the slope of the submerged bottom breaks--very roughly at about three feet deep. Centex's witnesses offered the better explanation of this phenomenon by linking it to the strong wakes produced by vessels motoring in the Intracoastal Waterway. Although the area of the proposed project is permanently slow speed, no wake, the Intracoastal Waterway channel has no speed limit, and the wakes from vessels in the channel pound the shallows, focusing considerable energy upon the rising bottom at the point at which the water depth reduces to three feet. The main problem with the wave attenuator as mitigation is one of scale. Nothing in the record suggests that the attenuator, even in conjunction with the rock crib beneath it, will attenuate the incoming waves along the entire length of the dock. The attenuator will absorb the energy of the waves, whether from passing vessels or storms, but the interrupted waves will rejoin a short distance landward of the attenuator, possibly waterward of the first appearance of significant seagrass. The wave attenuator is thus inadequate in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. The signs suffer two shortcomings. First, they are as likely to attract fishers as they are to deter recreational boaters, so the record permits no finding as to their efficacy in preserving or enhancing the remaining seagrass following the construction of the dock. Second, the record discloses little prop dredging of the seagrasses in the proposed vicinity of the dock, so the effect of the signs is not to ameliorate the damage historically done in this area by boats. To the contrary, at best, the signs may reduce some of the prop dredging that would occur in the future by boats drawn close to shore by the presence of the dock, which will attract fish and, thus, fishers. For these reasons, the signs are inadequate mitigation. Considered in conjunction with each other, the three mitigation activities fail to address the important food and nutrient-fixing functions of the seagrass that would be destroyed by the dock. Ignoring the failure of the proposed mitigation to address two of the most important functions of the seagrass, District and Centex contend that the mitigation is adequate for other reasons. District and Centex contend that the loss of seagrass is de minimis, consisting of not more than .03 acres of destroyed seagrass, or about 2.2 percent of the seagrass in the project area. Although the east-west orientation of the dock results in more shading than an identical dock oriented north- south, the shading loss could be less due to commendable design modifications involving the width, height, and translucent materials of the dock. Adding to the loss of seagrass from shading is the loss from the "halo effect," which is the wider area of seagrass loss probably resulting from the effect of the dock in artificially attracting and retaining seagrass consumers, like parrot fish. The record thus affords no basis for a finding of a loss of less than .03 acres. Nor does the record afford any basis for determining that the seagrass loss is de minimis. If Lake Worth Lagoon has seagrass to spare, the record does not support such a finding. If the lost functions of the seagrass--primarily, providing food and fixing nutrients--are not de minimis, the question remains whether practicable mitigation for these functions exists. Although transplantation of seagrass may be impracticable due to poor water clarity, even one of Centex's experts noted the importance of filling holes for seagrass recruitment, given the inability of seagrass to extend roots laterally up or down slopes. District's expert identified backfilling submerged holes and scraping spoil islands as two means of encouraging natural seagrass recruitment. District's expert noted a practical consideration favoring rock cribs versus more elaborate, higher-maintenance mitigation. Rock cribs are low- or no-maintenance projects that require no monitoring, enforcement, or enhancement. However, these same considerations underscore the complexity of the functions provided by seagrass lost to the proposed activity. Mitigating the loss of these functions may be difficult and high-maintenance, if the mitigation is to offset the loss. On this record, a finding of impracticability of such mitigation activities would be speculative, given the absence of evidence of impracticability, such as in the form of the absence of nearby depressions with suitable recruitment conditions or seagrass restoration projects in which Centex could participate. An unusual factor militating against a finding of adequate mitigation is that one of the seagrasses is itself a protected species. Johnson's grass is rare and fragile. The dock would displace Johnson's grass in a location less than one mile north of one of ten federally designated Critical Habitats for Johnson's Seagrass and one of two such habitats in Lake Worth Lagoon. 50 C.F.R. § 226.213(h). In contrast to the permit conditions directly protecting the manatee, the record is silent as to any effort by District to coordinate this permit with the work of the federal government and possibly the state and local governments to preserve Lake Worth Lagoon's seagrass, including the threatened Johnson's grass. On balance, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including listed species, and their habitats. The dock will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and erosion or shoaling. Located only 1.5 miles from the inlet, tidal flows are good in the project area. The rock crib and wave attenuator, which tend to restrict east-west flows and waves, will have little impact on the tidal flows, which are predominantly in a north-south direction. The dock will not cause any erosion or shoaling. The dock will be lighted and should not present a navigation hazard. Larger vessels will remain a safe distance from the dock as they travel in the Intracoastal Waterway channel. Under normal boating conditions, small boats, such as kayaks, canoes, and small motorboats, can safety navigate under the five-foot deck and between the pilings spaced at a minimum distance of ten feet apart. The dock will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. To the contrary, the structure provided by the dock will probably attract and concentrate fish, making them easier to catch. In the longer term, even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect marine productivity for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. The dock will not adversely affect any historical or archaeological resources. Even after mitigation, the dock will adversely affect the current conditions and relative value of functions for the reasons discussed in connection with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. For the reasons set forth above, Centex has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity, even after mitigation, is not harmful to the District's water resources, is not inconsistent with District's overall objectives, is not contrary to the public interest, will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by surface waters, and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Centex Homes' request for an environmental resource permit and approval to lease sovereign submerged lands for the purpose of constructing the above- described dock at Ocean Cay in the Lake Worth Lagoon. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 2nd day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida Marcy I. LaHart 33416-4680 Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladega Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Ashley D. Foster South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 J. Kendrick Tucker Huey, Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Williams, P.A. Post Office Box 12500 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2500
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about July 25, 1989, Stephen G. Thompson, Permitting Engineer with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), predecessor of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), wrote a memorandum to Howard Rhodes, Deputy Director of DER's Bureau of Water Facilities Planning and Regulation. The memo relayed a question being posed by an engineering consultant working for Pasco County on its Lake Padgett Effluent Disposal System, DER construction Permit No. DC51-159899. The question was whether Special Condition 15 should be deleted from the permit. The Lake Padgett permit was for a rapid rate infiltration (percolation pond) land application system for the disposal, via ground water recharge, of domestic wastewater effluent. Through the question passed along to Rhodes, Rhodes understood that the system included percolation ponds and drainage ditches on the site, which the County's engineer referred to as "perimeter ditches." Rhodes was given to understand that the perimeter ditches were designed to improve the performance of the system by lowering the ground water table at the site and increasing the hydraulic capacity of the ponds. The question posed by the County's engineer indicated to Rhodes that Special Condition 15 to the Lake Padgett permit prohibited discharges from the perimeter ditches into wetlands, citing Section 403.086 of the Florida Statutes. The County's engineer suggested: Since these perimeter ditches are being installed 100 feet from the wetted perimeter of the percolation ponds, I believe it is correct to define the water in said ditches as groundwater rather than wastewater effluent. Therefore, I do not believe that Chapter 403.086 would apply to the water in these perimeter ditches. In passing the question along to Rhodes, Thompson also cast it in his own words: If the permittee designs the project with a perimeter ditch system 100 feet away from the edge of the percolation/evaporation pond wetted area, will the discharge from the ditch system have to meet WQBEL or Grizzle-Figg limits if applicable? According to Chapter 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522, the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as an effluent disposal system. The question is whether the 100 feet buffer will allow the descrip- tion of the perimeter ditch water to be ground water or a co-mingled ground/reclaimed water. Rhodes reviewed the question and answered by memorandum dated September 15, 1989, which stated in salient part: Based on this review, discharges from perimeter ditch systems of percolation ponds must meet surface water quality requirements of advanced treatment, water quality based effluent limitations, or Grizzle- Figg limitations where applicable. Attached are comments which explain why these surface water quality requirements must be met. * * * COMMENTS Depending on site-specific parameters such as the infiltration rate, existing ground water table, subsurface flow, percolation pond depth, and ditch depth, the content of the water in the ditch may be either ground water or a mixture of ground water and reclaimed water. Because these parameters are site-specific, the content of water in the ditch is site-specific. However, knowledge of whether the water in the ditch is ground water or a mixture of ground water and reclaimed water is not important in determining the effluent limitations of the discharge from the ditch. . . . Because construction of perimeter ditches is associated with the operation of percolation ponds, the ditch should be considered part of the wastewater treatment facility and any discharge from the ditch must meet the applicable requirements of Rule 17-6, F. A. C., or Chapter 403, F.S. Also, because perimeter ditches are constructed around percolation ponds to improve performance, the ditches are located near the percolation ponds and some reclaimed water is normally drained to and collected in the ditch. Rule 17-610.517(2), F.A.C., specifically states discharge from perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application are restricted by surface water quality considerations of additional treatment or the WQBEL provisions of Rule 17-6, F.A.C. . . . It was argued that because the zone of discharge is 100-feet from the percolation pond and the ditch is also 100-feet from the percolation pond, the water in the perimeter ditch system is ground water. However, zone of discharge as defined by Rule 17-6.0321(33), F.A.C., does not mean that all water located outside the zone of discharge is ground water. Zone of discharge is more appropriately interpreted as a "mixing zone" for ground water. Waters inside the zone do not have to meet water quality standards. If waters outside the zone do not meet water quality standards, the permit is violated. The following question also was raised: Why do the effluent limitations of Chapter 403.086, F.S., apply for the discharge of a perimeter ditch constructed 100-feet from a percolation pond when they do not apply for the discharge from a percola- tion pond constructed 100-feet away from wetlands? The answer to this question is: The discharge from the ditch is a surface water discharge whereas the discharge from the percolation pond is a ground water discharge. In the case of ground water discharges, ground water quality standards must be met outside the zone of discharge. . . . It seems that [the second sentence of F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517(2)] was interpreted to mean; if more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water is collected in the ditch, the water is considered effluent and if 50 percent or less of the applied reclaimed water is collected, the water is considered ground water. This is not the intent of this rule. The intent is; if more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water is collected in the ditch, the applied reclaimed water is considered an effluent disposal system and if 50 percent or less of the applied reclaimed water is collected, the applied reclaimed water may be considered a reuse system. Therefore, this section of rule is not applicable to the Lake Padgett effluent disposal question. The permittee requested Specific Condition 15 be deleted from the permit. In some cases, this may be done. However, if it is deleted, a condition should be added to the permit that the discharge from the ditch meet surface water quality requirements of advanced treatment, WQBELS, or Grizzle-Figg limitations, where applicable . . ., [and] the permittee should also be required to provide reasonable assurance that the required discharge limitations can be met. On March 15, 1990, another Department employee, named Jim Bottone, prepared a two-page memorandum generally discussing the increasing use of perimeter ditches conjunction with rapid-rate land application systems. The memorandum concluded: "In summary, the use of perimeter ditches in conjunction with rapid-rate systems appears to be a 'force fit' of technology in order to save money on disposal. These systems appear to circumvent the intent of the Department's reuse initiative." The discussion included a statement: "Rule 17- 610.517(2) states that the discharge from a perimeter ditch shall be restricted by surface water quality considerations." On December 13, 1990, the Department's Reuse Coordinator, David W. York, Ph.D., P.E., sent Richard Harvey, Deputy Director of the Department's Division of Water Facilities, a memorandum on the subject of perimeter ditches and rapid-rate land application systems. It referred to the Rhodes and Bottone memos, stating that the Rhodes memo "clearly addresses the applicability of surface water quality considerations for this type of system." It also stated: If perimeter ditches are used in association with land application projects, and if the ditches receive flows containing a portion of the applied reclaimed water, the ditches are subject to surface water quality constraints. Surface water quality constraints may include technology-based effluent limits, water quality-based effluent limits, or Grizzle-Figg limitations, as appropriate. F.A.C. Rule Chapter 17-610 pertains to "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517 is entitled "Surface Runoff Control." Paragraph (1) of the rule requires that the land application site be designed to prevent the entrance of surface runoff, if necessary by placement of berms around the application area for this purpose. Paragraph (2) of the rule provides: Discharge from perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application, shall be restricted by surface water quality considerations pursuant to additional treatment or WQBEL provisions of Rules 17-600.420(2) and 17-600.430, F.A.C., respectively. Rapid-rate land application systems that result in the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as effluent disposal systems. Rules 17-600.420(2) and 17-600.430 establish additional levels of wastewater treatment for facilities that discharge to surface waters. The Department is in the process of amending part (2) of Rule 17- 610.517(2) by separating the sentences, making the second sentence a new part (3) of the rule, and explaining that the new part (3) would be used solely to classify projects as "reuse" or "disposal" and would in no way affect the requirements of part (2) of the rule. This amendment explicitly would codify in the rule the explanation in the Rhodes memo that the second sentence of current Rule 17-610.517(2) addresses the classification of disposal systems and, to that end, establishes as a benchmark the "collection and discharge [in the ditches] of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.522, entitled "Subsurface Drainage," provides: Subsurface drain systems, where necessary, shall be designed in accordance with appropriate portions of Rule 17-610.300(4)(f), F.A.C., concerning Soil Conservation Service criteria for subsurface drains. The drainage system shall be designed so that the seasonal high water table is drawn down to a minimum of 36 inches below pond bottoms during resting periods. Pollutant content (including fecal coliforms) of the reclaimed water collected by the underdrains may be further restricted by surface water quality considerations pursuant to additional treatment or WQBEL provisions of Rules 17-600.420(2) or 17-600.430, F.A.C., respectively. Rapid-rate land application systems that result in the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as effluent disposal systems. The Department also is in the process of amending Rule 17-610.522 by separating the sentences, making the last sentence a new part (2) of the rule, and explaining that the new part (2) would be used solely to classify projects as "reuse" or "disposal" and would in no way affect the requirements of part (1) of the rule. The 50 percent figure in F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 was chosen based on deliberations by the 1988-89 Reuse Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC). The RTAC offers technical expertise and advice to the Department as revisions to Chapter 17-610 are drafted. A criterion was needed for categorization purposes, and it was determined that 50 percent represented a reasonable break point. The members of the RTAC represent the national leaders in reuse of reclaimed water. F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(2) establishes a minimum 500-foot setback distance between the wetted areas of a reuse land application site and Class I and II surface waters of the state, reduced to 100 feet if high-level disinfection is provided. F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(5) provides that setback distances to other classes of surface waters "shall be sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable water quality standards." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(8) provides: The minimum setbacks . . . shall only be used if, based on review of the soils and hydrogeology of the area, the proposed hydraulic loading rate, quality of the reclaimed water, expected travel time of the ground water to the potable water supply wells and surface waters, and similar considerations, there is reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated. There is a valid reason for not establishing the same minimum setback distances between the wetted edge of percolation ponds and perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application. Unlike reclaimed water that disperses and diffuses in the ground before a part of it reaches a water body solely through the ground, even though reclaimed water may travel through the ground for 100 feet before reaching perimeter drainage features, those features then collect and concentrate the resulting mixture of reclaimed water and groundwater for discharge into the surface water, typically at a limited number of discharge points and at higher volumes and flow rates. At some point as it migrates through the ground and mixes with other ground water, reclaimed becomes indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water. It is, of course, difficult to pinpoint precisely how far from the wetted edge of a percolation pond this occurs.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4-109-0216-ERP, should be modified to allow construction and operation of a surface water management system (project) related to the construction and operation of single-family homes on "Marshall Creek" (Parcel D) in a manner consistent with the standards for issuance of an ERP in accordance with Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Project The project is a 29.9-acre residential development and associated stormwater system in a wetland mitigation area known as "Parcel D." It lies within the much larger Marshall Creek DRI in St. Johns County, Florida, bounded on the northeast by Marshall Creek, on the south and southeast by a previously permitted golf course holes sixteen and seventeen, and on the north by the "Loop Road." The project consists of thirty residential lots of approximately one-half acre in size; a short segment of Loop Road to access Parcel D; an internal road system; expansion of previously permitted Pond N, a wet detention stormwater management pond lying north of the Loop Road and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 1.15 acres of wetlands are located on the Parcel D site. The project plan calls for filling 0.63 acres of the wetlands for purposes of constructing a road and residential lots for Parcel D. Part of that 0.63-acre impact area, 0.11 acres, is comprised of a 760-foot-long, narrow drainageway, with 0.52 acres of adjacent wetland. Downstream of the fill area, 0.52 acres of higher quality wetland is to be preserved. Hines proposes to preserve 4.5 acres of existing wetland and 2.49 acres of upland, as well as to create .82 acres of forested wetland as mitigation for the proposed impact of the project. Additionally, as part of the project, Hines will implement a nutrient and pesticide management plan. The only pesticides to be used at the project will be approved by the Department of Agriculture for use with soil types prevailing at the site and only pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency may be used on the site. All pesticides to be used on the project site must be selected to minimize impacts to ground and surface water, including having a maximum 70-day half-life. Stormwater Management System The majority of surface runoff from Parcel D will be diverted to a stormwater collection system and thence through drainage pipes and a swale into Phase I of Pond N. After treatment in Pond N, the water will discharge to an upland area adjacent to wetlands associated with Marshall Creek and then flow into Marshall Creek. The system will discharge to Marshall Creek. In addition to the area served by Pond N, a portion of lots fourteen though twenty drain through a vegetated, natural buffer zone and ultimately through the soil into Marshall Creek. Water quality treatment for that stormwater runoff will be achieved by percolating water into the ground and allowing natural soil treatment. The fifty-foot, vegetated, natural buffer is adequate to treat the stormwater runoff to water quality standards for Lots 14, 15 and 20. Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, will have only a twenty-five foot buffer, so additional measures must be adopted for those lots to require either that the owners of them direct all runoff from the roofs and driveways of houses to be constructed on those lots to the collection system for Pond N or placement of an additional twenty-five foot barrier of xeriscape plants, with all non- vegetated areas being mulched, with no pesticide or fertilizer use. An additional mandatory permit condition, specifying that either of these measures must be employed for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, is necessary to ensure that water quality standards will be met. Pond N is a wet detention-type stormwater pond. Wet detention systems function similarly to natural lakes and are permanently wet, with a depth of six to twelve feet. When stormwater enters a wet detention pond it mixes with existing water and physical, chemical and biological processes work to remove the pollutants from the stormwater. Pond N is designed for a twenty-five year, twenty-four- hour storm event (design storm). The pre-development peak rate of discharge from the Pond N drainage area for the design storm event is forty cubic feet per second. The post-development peak rate of discharge for the design storm event will be approximately twenty-eight cubic feet per second. The discharge rate for the less severe, "mean annual storm" would be approximately eleven cubic feet per second, pre-development peak rate and the post-development peak rate of discharge would be approximately five cubic feet per second. Consequently, the post-development peak rate of discharge does not exceed the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Pond N is designed to meet the engineering requirements of Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. Because the pond is not designed with a littoral zone, the permanent pool volume has been increased by fifty-percent. Additionally, because Pond N discharges to the Class II waters of Marshall Creek, an additional fifty-percent of treatment volume is included in the pond design. The system design addresses surface water velocity and erosion issues through incorporation of best management practices promulgated by the District to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including; designing side slopes of 4:1; siding and seeding disturbed areas to stabilize soil; and the use of riprap at the outfall from Pond N. During construction, short- term water quality impacts will be addressed through installation of silt fences and hay bales. The majority of the eighteen-acre drainage basin which flows into the Parcel D wetland lies to the south and southwest of Parcel D. In accordance with the prior permit, water from those off-site acres will be intercepted and routed to stormwater ponds serving golf course holes sixteen and seventeen. The system design will prevent adverse impacts to the hydroperiod of remaining on-site and off-site wetlands. The remaining wetlands will be hydrated through groundwater flow. Surface waters will continue to flow to the wetlands adjacent to lots fourteen through twenty because drainage from those lots will be directed across a vegetated, natural buffer to those wetlands. There is no diversion of water from the natural drainage basin, because Pond N discharges to a wetland adjacent to Marshall Creek, slightly upstream from the current discharge point for the wetland which is to be impacted. This ensures that Marshall Creek will continue to receive that fresh-water source. An underground "PVC cut-off wall" will be installed around Pond N to ensure that the pond will not draw down the water table below the wetlands near the pond. Pond N has been designed to treat stormwater prior to discharge, in part to remove turbidity and sedimentation. This means that discharge from the pond will not carry sediment and that the system will not result in shoaling. There will be no septic tanks in the project. The system is a gravity flow system with no mechanical or moving parts. It will be constructed in accordance with standard industry materials readily available and there will be nothing extraordinary about its design or operation. The system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained and the owner of the system will be the Marshall Creek Community Development District (CDD). Water Quality Water entering Pond N will have a residence time of approximately 200 days or about fifteen times higher than the design criteria listed in the below-cited rule. During that time, the treatment and removal process described herein will occur, removing most of the pollutants. Discharge from the pond will enter Marshall Creek, a Class II water body. The discharges must therefore meet Class II water quality numerical and anti-degradation standards. The design for the pond complies with the design criteria for wet detention systems listed in Rule 40C-42.026(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition to meeting applicable design criteria, the potential discharge will meet water quality standards. The pond will have low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous resulting in low algae production in the pond. The long residence time of the water in the pond will provide an adequate amount of time for pesticides to volatilize or degrade, minimizing the potential for pesticide discharge. Due to the clear characteristics of the water column, neither thermal stratification nor chemical stratification are expected. Periodically, fecal coliform and total coliform levels are exceeded under current, pre-development conditions. These are common natural background conditions. Because the detention time in the pond will be an average of 200 days, and because the life span of fecal coliform bacteria is approximately seven to fourteen days the levels for coliforms in the pond will be very low. Discharges from the pond will enhance water quality of the Class II receiving waters because the levels of fecal coliform and total coliform will be reduced. The discharge will be characterized by approximately 100 micrograms per liter total nitrogen, compared with a background of 250 micrograms per liter presently existing in the receiving waters of Marshall Creek. The discharge will contain approximately three micrograms per liter of phosphorous, compared with sixty-three micrograms per liter presently existing in Marshall Creek. Total suspended solids in the discharge will be less than one-milligram per liter compared with seventy-two milligrams per liter in the present waters of Marshall Creek. Biochemical oxygen demand will be approximately a 0.3 level in the discharge, compared with a level of 2.4 in Marshall Creek. Consequently, the water quality discharging from the pond will be of better quality than the water in Marshall Creek or the water discharging from the wetland today. The pollutant loading in the discharge from the stormwater management system will have water quality values several times lower than pre-development discharges from the same site. Comparison of pre-development and post-development mass loadings of pollutants demonstrates that post-development discharges will be substantially lower than pre-development discharges. Currently, Marshall Creek periodically does not meet Class II water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. Construction and operation of the project will improve water quality in the creek concerning dissolved oxygen values because discharges from Pond N will be subjected to additional aeration. This results from design features such as discharge from the surface of the system, where the highest level of dissolved oxygen exists, and the discharge water draining through an orifice and then free falling to a stormwater structure, providing additional aeration. Discharges from the system will maintain existing uses of the Class II waters of Marshall Creek because there will be no degradation of water quality. Discharges will not cause new violations or contribute to existing violations because the discharge from the system will contain less pollutant loading for coliform and will be at a higher quality or value for dissolved oxygen. Discharges from the system as to water quality will not adversely affect marine fisheries or marine productivity because the water will be clear so there will be no potential for thermal stratification; the post-development discharges will remain freshwater so there will be no change to the salinity regime; and the gradual pre-development discharges will be replicated in post-development discharges. Several factors minimize potential for discharge of pesticide related pollutants: (1) only EPA-approved pesticides can be used; (2) only pesticides approved for site-specific soils can be used; (3) pesticides must be selected so as to minimize impacts on surface and groundwater; (4) pesticides must have a maximum half-life of 70 days; and (5) the system design will maximize such pollutant removal. Archaeological Resources The applicant conducted an archaeological resource assessment of the project and area. This was intended to locate and define the boundaries of any historical or archaeological sites and to assess any site, if such exists, as to its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Only a portion of one archaeological site was located on the project tract. Site 8SJ3473, according to witness Anne Stokes, an expert in the field of archaeological assessment, contains trace artifacts dating to the so-called "Orange Period," a time horizon for human archaeological pre-history in Florida dating to approximately 2,300 B.C. The site may have been only a small campsite, however, since only five pottery fragments and two chert flakes, residuals from tool-making were found. Moreover, there is little possibility that the site would add to knowledge concerning the Orange Period or pre-history because it is a very common type of site for northeast Florida and is not an extensive village site. There are likely other campsites around and very few artifacts were found. No artifacts were found which would associate the site with historic events or persons. The applicant provided the findings of its cultural resource assessment, made by Dr. Stokes, to the Florida Division of Historical Resources. That agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing cultural resource assessments to determine if significant historic or archaeological resources will be impacted. The division reviewed the survey techniques used by Dr. Stokes, including shovel testing, sub-surface testing and pedestrian walk-over and investigation. The division determined that the site in question is not of a significant historical or archaeological nature as a resource because it does not meet any of the four criteria for inclusion in the National Register.1 Thus the referenced agency determined that the site in question is not a significant historical or archaeological resource and that construction may proceed in that area without further investigation, insofar as its regulatory jurisdiction is concerned. Wetlands The wetlands to be impacted by the project consist of a 1,000 foot drainage-way made up of a 0.11 acre open-water channel, approximately four feet wide, and an adjacent vegetated wetland area of approximately 0.52 acres containing fewer than 30 trees. The open-water channel is intermittent in that it flows during periods of heavy rainfall and recedes to a series of small, standing pools of water during drier periods. The Parcel D wetland is hydrologically connected to Marshall Creek, although its ephemeral nature means that the connection does not always flow. The wetland at times consists only of isolated pools that do not connect it to Marshall Creek. Although it provides detrital material export, that function is negligible because the productivity of the adjacent marsh is so much greater than that of the wetland with its very small drainage area. Because of the intermittent flow in the wetland, base flow maintenance and nursery habitat functions are not attributed to the wetland. The Parcel D wetland is not unique. The predominant tree species and the small amount of vegetated wetland are water oak and swamp bay. Faunal utilization of the wetland is negligible. The wetland drainage-way functions like a ditch because it lacks the typical characteristics of a creek, such as a swampy, hardwood floodplain headwater system that channelizes and contains adjacent hardwood floodplains. The location of the wetland is an area designated by the St. Johns County comprehensive plan as a development parcel. The Florida Natural Areas Inventories maps indicate that the wetland is not within any unique wildlife or vegetative habitats. The wetland is to be impacted as a freshwater system and is not located in a lagoon or estuary. It contains no vegetation that is consistent with a saltwater wetland. The retaining wall at the end of the impact area is located 1.7 feet above the mean high water line. Wetland Impacts The proposed 0.63 acre wetland impact area will run approximately 760 linear feet from the existing trail road to the proposed retaining wall. If the wetland were preserved, development would surround the wetland, adversely affecting its long-term functions. Mitigation of the wetland functions is proposed, which will provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetland to be adversely affected. The wetland to be impacted does not provide a unique or special wetland function or good habitat source for fish or wildlife. The wetland does not provide the thick cover that would make it valuable as Black Bear habitat and is so narrow and ephemeral that it would not provide good habitat for aquatic-dependent and wetland-dependent species. Its does not, for instance, provide good habitat for woodstorks due to the lack of a fish population and its closed- in tree canopy. Minnow sized fish (Gambusia) and crabs were seen in portions of the wetland, but those areas are downstream of the proposed area of impact. Mitigation Mitigation is offered as compensation for any wetland impacts as part of an overall mitigation plan for the Marshall Creek DRI. The overall mitigation plan is described in the development order, the mitigation offered for the subject permit and mitigation required by prior permits. A total of 27 acres of the more than 287 acres of wetlands in the total 1,300-acre DRI tract are anticipated to be impacted by the DRI. Approximately 14.5 acres of impacted area out of that 27 acres has already been previously authorized by prior permits. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI as a whole will preserve all of the remaining wetlands in the DRI after development occurs. Approximately one-half of that preserved area already has been committed to preservation as a condition of prior permits not at issue in this case. Also, as part of prior permitting, wetland creation areas have been required, as well as preserved upland buffers which further protect the preserved wetlands. The mitigation area for the project lies within the Tolomato River Basin. The development order governing the total DRI requires that 66 acres of uplands must also be preserved adjacent to preserved wetlands. The overall mitigation plan for the DRI preserves or enhances approximately 260 acres of wetlands; preserves a minimum of 66 acres of uplands and creates enhancement or restores additional wetlands to offset wetland impacts. The preserved wetlands and uplands constitute the majority of Marshall Creek, and Stokes Creek which are tributaries of the Tolomato River Basin, a designated Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Preservation of these areas prevents them from being timbered and ensures that they will not be developed in the future. The overall DRI mitigation plan provides regional ecological value because it encompasses wetlands and uplands they are adjacent to and in close proximity to the following regionally significant resources: (1) the 55,000 acre Guana- Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve; (2) the Guana River State Park; (3) the Guana Wildlife Management Area; (4) an aquatic preserve; (5) an OFW; and (6) the 22,000 acre Cummer Tract Preserve. The mitigation plan will provide for a wildlife corridor between these resources, preserve their habitat and insure protection of the water quality for these regionally significant resources. The mitigation offered to offset wetland impacts associated with Parcel D includes: (1) wetland preservation of 0.52 acres of bottom land forest along the northeast property boundary (wetland EP); (2) wetland preservation of 3.98 acres of bottom land forest on a tributary of Marshall Creek contained in the DRI boundaries (Wetlands EEE and HHH); (3) upland preservation of 2.49 acres, including a 25-foot buffer along the preserved Wetlands EEE and HHH and a 50-foot buffer adjacent to Marshall Creek and preserved Wetland EP; (4) a wetland creation area of 0.82 acres, contiguous with the wetland preservation area; and (5) an upland buffer located adjacent to the wetland creation area. The wetland creation area will be graded to match the grades of the adjacent bottomland swamp and planted with wetland tree species. Small ponds of varying depths will be constructed in the wetland creation area to provide varying hydrologic conditions similar to those of the wetland to be impacted. The wetland creation area is designed so as to not de-water the adjacent wetlands. All of the mitigation lands will be encumbered with a conservation easement consistent with the requirements of Section 704.06, Florida Statutes. The proposed mitigation will offset the wetland functions and values lost through the wetland impact on Parcel D. The wetland creation is designed to mimic the functions of the impact area, but is located within a larger ecological system that includes hardwood wetland headwaters. The long-term ecological value of the mitigation area will be greater than the long-term value of the wetland to be impacted because; (1) the mitigation area is part of a larger ecological system; (2) the mitigation area is part of an intact wetland system; (3) the wetland to be impacted will be unlikely to maintain its functions in the long-term; and (4) the mitigation area provides additional habitat for animal species not present in the wetland to be impacted. Certain features will prevent adverse secondary impacts in the vicinity of the roadway such as: (1) a retaining wall which would prevent migration of wetland animals onto the road; (2) a guard rail to prevent people from moving from the uplands into wetlands; and (3) a vegetated hedge to prevent intrusion of light and noise caused by automotive use of the roadway.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting the subject application for modification of Permit 4-109-0216A-ERP so as to allow construction and operation of the Parcel D project at issue, with the addition of the inclusion of a supplemental permit condition regarding the vegetated natural buffers for Lots 16 through 19 described and determined above. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent Sun East is a corporation who seeks to create a Planned Unit Development, PUD 89-25, on its property located in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner Hirt owns and resides on property adjacent to the Planned Unit Development. The only geographical boundary between the proposed project and Petitioner's property is Watkins Road. Respondent SWFWMD is the water management district with permitting authority over the 5.36 acres involved in the permit application which is the subject of these proceedings. Jurisdictional Areas of Controversy Respondent Sun East began the application process for a surface water management general construction permit from SWFWMD for Phase I of its proposed development of PUD 89-25 on July 1, 1991. SWFWMD determined the application was complete on July 24, 1991. The permit which was issued the next day authorized Respondent Sun East to perform the work outlined in the permit and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, and other documents on file with SWFWMD. Petitioner Hirt timely filed a formal administrative complaint in which he disputed the appropriateness of the permit issued. In support of his position, Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy and alleged that the application and review process was insufficient. Petitioner's allegations in his complaint, which are properly before the Hearing Officer, are as follows: The approved surface water management system will cause surface water runoff from the project to flood Petitioner's property. One potential cause of such anticipated flooding is the lack of proper percolation design in the surface water management storage areas. Contrary to permit representations, the property and the retention pond required by SWFWMD are in the 100 year flood plain. The project is in an environmentally sensitive area. Respondent Sun East has neither complied with all local requirements nor obtained all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction authorized by the permit. Site Information The parcel of land on which the project will be located lies partially within the geographical limits of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The remaining land lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Originally, SFWMD gave Respondent Sun East a permit to construct Phase I of the project, along with conceptual approval for Phase II. The decision by Sun East to file the application for a surface water management general construction permit with SFWMD instead of SWFWMD was based upon advice from personnel at SWFWMD. When it was later determined that SWFWMD would need to review an application for Phase I in order for the project to be properly permitted, SWFWMD acted quickly to reduce any potential delay to the project which could be attributed to its prior incorrect jurisdictional analysis. The agency's efforts were unrelated to any political connections or family relationships the former landowner, Jack Watkins, may have with past or current members of the Florida Legislature or Congress. The grading plan for Phase I of the project coupled with the pre- development and post-development 25 year storm event analysis, assessed drainage concerns associated with Phase I of the PUD. Water flow analysis for the site that considered existing conditions and proposed improvements, demonstrates that the property west of Watkins Road is not part of the surface water management system for this project. The cross drain beneath Watkins Road to the south of the proposed project deals with a different, natural conveyance system to Lake Pierce which is utilized by property owners such as Petitioner Hirt on the east side of the roadway. The proposed surface water management system for Phase I will not affect the drainage conveyance system utilized by property owners on the east side of Watkins Road. The stormwater management collection and conveyance system for Phase I was designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 25 year 24-hour rainfall event, as required. It was not overdesigned to deal with a more intense, longer rainfall or storm event. Essentially, stormwater treatment and attenuation will be provided by the two proposed detention ponds A & B, as depicted on the site plan. Runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be filtered through a proposed side berm filter system in Pond A. The Polk County Soil Survey and field observations were used to assist in the weir control structure design. The weir was designed to restrict the post-development 25 year discharge to the pre-developed 25 year runoff rate. The project does not rely on percolation to offset post-development changes in the surface water management system design. As a result, percolation rates are not a factor to be dealt with in a design review. Flood Plain The 100 year elevation of 79 feet above mean sea level delineates the 100 year flood plain on the property in Phase I. According to the contour map, the existing Ponds 1 and 2 have depression contours below the flood plain. The water level in Existing Pond 1 is 78.24 feet. The water level in Existing Pond 2 is 78.14 feet. These ponds are not a major or significant part of an existing, natural surface water storage system in the area. They are just minor surface depressions. None of the lots contained in Phase I encroach upon the 100 year flood plain level. Environmental Concerns The parties stipulated at hearing that SWFWMD rule criteria relating to wetland and natural resource impacts were met by Sun East's general surface water management permit application. Local Requirements Prior to making application to SWFWMD for a permit in this case, Respondent Sun East obtained approval for Phase I of PUD 89-25 from Polk County. Since that time, the zoning approval was quashed by the circuit court. Respondent Sun East was ordered to obtain the SWFWMD permit before reapplying for zoning approval. The limiting conditions which are part of the permit issued by SWFWMD state: The permittee shall comply with all applicable local subdivision regulations and other local requirements. In addition the permittee shall obtain all necessary Federal, State, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any construction or alteration of works authorized by this permit. The permit limiting conditions do not require that all other permits be acquired prior to the application for this permit. Instead, the limiting conditions advise that all other necessary permits must be acquired prior to construction or alteration of works begun pursuant to this permit. Petitioner began construction authorized by the permit after SWFWMD issued its permit approval on July 25, 1991. The Petitions for Certiorari on the final approval for Phase I from Polk County was already filed when the application for a permit from SWFWMD was requested by Sun East. The completed application does not reflect that the Polk County zoning approval was being challenged, and SWFWMD was not made aware of the possibility that it could be overturned at a later date. The permit issued by SWFWMD was timely challenged by Petitioner, before the approval became final agency action. Sun East did not comply with the limiting condition in the permit that requires a permittee to obtain all necessary authorizations prior to construction as the zoning approval was still unsettled when construction began. Petitioner's challenge to the SWFWMD permit was filed in good faith as numerous disputes of fact existed regarding this permit prior to resolution in this Recommended Order. Based upon the information and documentation given to Petitioner when the permit was issued, it reasonably appeared that his substantial interests were affected by the proposed drainage plan associated with the development.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SWFWMD issue the general construction permit for the surface water management system for Phase I, within the limits indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein. That SWFWMD initiate an inspection of the stormwater management system at its expense to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. That appropriate action be taken under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to prevent the continued violation of the limiting condition in the permit relating to construction starts. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 24th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5689 Joint Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Respondents are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT PERSANTE ESQ MERKLE & MAGRI 7650 W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY - STE 1120 TAMPA FL 33607 ANDREW R REILLY ESQ REILLY & LASSEIGNE PO BOX 2039 HAINES CITY FL 33845 EDWARD B HELVENSTON ESQ DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 PETER G HUBBELL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD ST BROOKSVILLE FL 34609 6899 CAROL BROWNER/SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BLDG 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Dames Point Workboats, LLC, is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 20, 2018, and subsequently amended on December 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing ("Petition") with DEP on August 17, 2018. Respondent Workboats is the applicant for the Project. Its business address is 5118 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32226. Workboats' owner, Shafnacker, owns the property located upland of the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Project is proposed to be constructed and operated. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to those statutes. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. Pursuant to section 253.002, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny applications for sovereignty submerged lands leases. The Back Channel and Vicinity of the Project The Project is proposed to be located in the "Back Channel" area of the St. Johns River, directly across from Blount Island. The Back Channel, as a part of the St. Johns River, is classified as a Class III waterbody. It is not designated an Outstanding Florida Water, is not located within an Aquatic Preserve, and is not designated for Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting. The Back Channel is configured in the shape of an inverted "U" and runs between Blount Island and Heckscher Drive, from the southeast corner of Blount Island to the bridges located on the northwest side of Blount Island. It constitutes a portion of the historic main channel of the St. Johns River and was used for all vessel navigation in the river until the Dames Point Cut was dredged through a peninsula to the south, creating Blount Island and a new straight channel to the Atlantic Ocean. Most vessels, including large ships, use the Dames Point Cut for ingress into and egress from the St. Johns River. However, the Back Channel remains navigable and is used for recreational activities and some commercial and industrial navigation. A mix of residential, commercial, and industrial and land uses is located on the north shore of the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. These uses consist of approximately 90 single-family residences having docks, three fish camps/recreational marinas, two restaurants, and docking structures used for mooring inshore shrimping vessels. A docking facility owned by M & M Shrimp and used for mooring shrimping vessels is located on the Back Channel immediately to the west of the Project site. A residence owned by Wood is located on the Back Channel immediately east of the Project site. Four other residences are located immediately east of Wood's residence, and back up to the Back Channel. Most of the shoreline on which these residences are located consists of riprap; however, a small patch of salt marsh borders the shoreline on Wood's residential parcel. Although Blount Island is a heavy industrial port, its northern shoreline on the Back Channel, across from the proposed Project site, consists of relatively undisturbed salt marsh and trees. The northeastern shoreline of the Back Channel generally consists of salt marsh and riprap, with docks constructed along the shoreline. Two bridges connect Blount Island to the mainland a short distance west of the proposed Project. These bridges each have a clearance of approximately ten feet, so they cannot be cleared by large vessels. As a practical matter, this has the effect of limiting the size of vessels that use the Back Channel in the vicinity of the Project. The Back Channel west of the bridges to the southwestern tip of Blount Island is fronted by heavy industrial uses, and numerous multi-family residential and industrial docking facilities are located in this area. A slow speed, minimum wake zone for boat operations extends 300 feet out into the Back Channel from both the north and south shorelines. The Back Channel is approximately 1,340 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be constructed. The Proposed Project The proposed Project will be constructed and operated4/ as a commercial tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/ offloading facility. The Project is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands5/ and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and sovereignty submerged lands lease are required for construction and operation of the Project.6/ The Project will be located waterward of the mean high water line on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to four upland waterfront parcels that are owned by Shafnacker. These lots are: Lot 6 (5100 Heckscher Drive, RE 159971 0000); Lot 7 (5110 Heckscher Drive, RE 159972 0000); Lot 8 (5118 Heckscher Drive, RE 159973 0000); and Lot 9 (5120 Heckscher Drive, RE 159974 0000). Collectively, these lots have approximately 425 feet of linear shoreline, as measured at the mean high water line, bordering the Back Channel. This shoreline is comprised of salt marsh and riprap. A substantial portion of lots 6, 7, and 8 consists of salt marsh wetlands. No structures are proposed to be constructed on Lot 6. The salt marsh areas on lots 7 and 8 are traversed by existing pile-supported piers/access docks. To the extent they are replaced, such replacement will be by like-for- like structures, so there will be no new impact to the salt marsh wetlands on these lots. Most of Lot 9 consists of upland, some of which is authorized to be refilled under the Consolidated Authorization. A small wetland area consisting of approximately 18 square feet of salt marsh will be crossed by a new dock, but will not be filled or otherwise physically impacted. Dock A is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 7, and will consist of a 15.4-foot-long by 8-foot-wide extension added to the waterward end of an existing 150.8-foot-long by 8-foot-wide wooden dock, plus a 4-foot-long gangway attached to the waterward end of the extension, which will connect to a 100-foot-long by 9.5-foot wide concrete floating dock. Dock B is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Lot 8, and will consist of a 40-foot-long by 10.3-foot-wide concrete floating dock with an 18-foot-long by 6-foot-wide platform, and a 4-foot-long gangway attached to an existing 125.2-foot-long by 5-foot-wide wooden dock. Dock C is proposed to be located on Lot 9, and will consist of a new inverted-L-shaped dock consisting of a 71-foot- long by four-foot wide pile-supported finger dock extending perpendicular to the shoreline into the Lease area, and a 26-foot long by 4-foot-wide dock running roughly parallel to the shoreline that will be constructed outside of the Lease area. Four wooden pilings also are proposed to be installed waterward of Lot 9. Three of these pilings will be located along the eastern boundary of the Lease, and the piling closest to the shoreline of Lot 9 will be located outside of the Lease area. All of these pilings will be set back 25 feet from Workboats' eastern riparian rights line. The newly constructed piling-supported dock additions to docks A and B, and new Dock C, will be elevated four feet above the marsh and will be constructed by hand-laying planks from the shoreline outward into the water, using the previously- laid planks as support while laying the new planks. Three three-pile mooring dolphins also are proposed as part of the Project. They will be installed within the Lease area, set back 38 feet from the southern boundary. No dredging is proposed or authorized for the Project. The Lease will be issued for a term of ten years and will preempt approximately 49,746 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands. The western boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet east of the upland property's western riparian rights line, and the eastern boundary of the Lease is located 25 feet west of the upland property's eastern riparian rights line. With the exception of a portion of Dock C and one wood piling that will be constructed on submerged land owned by Shafnacker,7/ all other structures proposed as part of the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease, and all vessel mooring and over-water operational activities authorized as part of the Project will occur within the Lease area. The Consolidated Authorization authorizes the placement of approximately 3,500 square feet of fill landward of the mean high water line and the jurisdictional wetland line, to replace historic fill eroded by hurricanes in 2017. Additionally, as a condition of the Consolidated Authorization, Workboats is required to restore approximately 250 square feet of salt marsh cord grass waterward of the mean high water line on Lot 9 as corrective action for unauthorized filling/destruction of salt marsh wetlands. As noted above, when constructed, the Project will operate as a tugboat/work boats mooring and loading/unloading facility. Workboats owns a fleet of approximately 40 vessels, comprised of barges, tow/push boats, and work boats, which are used to provide a range of marine services to third parties, including the transport/delivery of food and other supplies; artificial reef placement; marine demolition; and pile driving. These vessels will be moored at the docks, mooring dolphins, and mooring piles comprising the Project.8/ Of these 40 vessels, 28 are barges that range from ten to 130 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 feet deep. The remaining 12 vessels are boats that range from 14 to 46.2 feet in length, and have drafts ranging from one foot to 6.8 feet deep. The water depths within the Lease area range from one tenth of one foot immediately adjacent to the shoreline, to between 39.5 and 43.5 feet deep at mean low water at the southern boundary of the Lease. Only one or two of the smaller boats in Workboats' fleet have drafts that are shallow enough to enable them to moor on the shoreward sides of Docks A and B. In any event, all vessels must moor in areas within the Lease area having depths at mean low water sufficient to ensure that they do not come into contact with submerged resources. To that end, a condition is included in the Consolidated Authorization requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of a vessel with the motor in the "down" position and the top of submerged resources at mean low water. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that with the exception of the 32-foot-long Marlin Barge and the 10- foot-long Galligan barges, all other barges in Workboats' fleet will moor at the three-pile dolphins near the southern boundary of the Lease. Some barges will be anchored to the substrate by spuds, and the condition requiring 12 inches of clearance between the vessel bottom and the top of submerged resources would not apply to the spuds themselves. The parties stipulated, and Shafnacker testified, that Workboats will only load vessels from Dock B, which is appurtenant to Lot 8, and that the only equipment that will be used to load vessels will be equipment small and light enough to traverse Dock B——specifically, a Takeuchi mini-excavator, small forklift, or similarly-sized equipment. These limitations regarding the loading of vessels within the Lease area are not currently included as conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the parties' stipulation and competent substantial evidence in the record, conditions should be added to the Consolidated Authorization expressly limiting the loading of vessels in the Lease area to occurring only on Dock B, and limiting the type of equipment used for vessel loading and unloading to forklifts, mini-excavators, or similar light equipment. Shafnacker testified that the only other work that may be performed within the Lease area would consist of certain minor maintenance activities on Workboats' vessels; these minor repair activities include non-routine paint touchups and handrail painting, minor cable and winch repairs, and minor steel-rod (non-lead) welding. DEP Review and Approval of the Project Workboats filed a Joint Application for Individual Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit ("Application") on or about June 15, 2018. The Application was determined to be complete. DEP staff reviewed the Application and determined that the Project, as proposed, met the applicable statutory standards and rule requirements for issuance of the Consolidated Authorization. DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent on or about July 20, 2018, proposing to issue the environmental resource permit and Lease for the Project. The Application, Consolidated Notice of Intent, and Consolidated Authorization were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. Compliance with Rule 62-330.301 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it must provide reasonable assurance9/ that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.301.10/ Water Quantity, Storage, Conveyance, and Flooding Impacts The entire Project, as proposed, will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line and will consist of mooring piles, piling-supported docks, and floating docks. These structures will not affect, impound, store, divert, or impede the amount or flow of surface water. The evidence demonstrated that the Project, if constructed and operated as proposed, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Impacts to Value of Functions Provided to Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and Habitat Two types of habitat exist at the Project site: salt marsh and submerged benthic habitat. The evidence established that the salt marsh at the Project site is healthy, high-quality, high-functioning salt marsh habitat. Among the functions the salt marsh provides are preservation and improvement of water quality by filtering runoff, serving as a nursery for fish species, preventing shoreline erosion, and forming the base of the estuarine food chain. The salt marsh, in combination with existing riprap at the edge of the salt marsh, forms a "living shoreline" at the Project site that helps protect the shoreline from erosion and scouring due to wave action. This living shoreline is not being removed or otherwise affected, and will remain in place at the Project site. The submerged benthic sediment at the Project site consists of high organic silts and a sand base. The evidence established that the benthic sediment provides habitat for infauna, such as polychaete worms; and for epifauna, such as shrimp, crabs, and mollusks. No submerged aquatic vegetation or oyster bars were found at the Project site. Docks A and B consist of extensions that will be added to two existing docks that previously were constructed through the salt marsh. These extensions will be constructed four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, using minimally- impactful construction techniques, discussed above, to help avoid and minimize construction impacts to the marsh. The floating components of docks A and B will not have any impact on the salt marsh habitat. Dock C will be constructed waterward of Lot 9, across a very small section of salt marsh grass. It also will be elevated four feet above the marsh floor to reduce shading, and will be constructed using the same minimally-impactful technique, to avoid and minimize impacts to the marsh. Because Dock C will have only de minimis impacts on the salt marsh, no mitigation has been required. The Consolidated Authorization contains conditions requiring Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibiting Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have only minimal impacts on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring maintenance of a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel, with the motor in the down position, and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Additionally, the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds is prohibited. These conditions will help protect benthic habitat at the Project site. The Florida Manatee is the only listed species that inhabits the Project site. Video evidence presented by the City showed manatees present at, and in the vicinity of, the Project site. The Project is located in an area designated, in the most recent Duval County Manatee Protection Plan (November 2017) ("MPP"), as "preferred" for boat facility siting. Boating facilities located in designated "preferred" areas generally do not have any limits on the number of slips at the facility. "Preferred" boat facility siting areas were designated in the MPP based on many factors, including manatee abundance, presence of manatee feeding habitat, proximity to boating destinations, manatee mortality in the area, existing boating slip numbers and locations, boating facility type and number, and existence of speed zones. To protect manatees in the Back Channel, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") has, by rule, established a slow speed, minimum wake zone extending 300 feet from the shorelines into the Back Channel. A slow speed, minimum wake zone means that a vessel must be fully off-plane and completely settled into the water, proceeding at a speed which is reasonable and prudent under the prevailing circumstances so as to avoid the creation of an excessive wake or other hazardous condition which endangers or is likely to endanger other persons using the waterway.11/ Fla. Admin. Code R. 68C-22.02(4). The existence and enforcement of this speed zone will help protect manatees in the Back Channel. Conditions also have been included in the Consolidated Authorization to help protect manatees from impacts from the Project. As previously discussed, for each vessel, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water, must be maintained. This condition will help ensure that manatees do not become trapped under or crushed by a vessel while moored in the Lease area. Additionally, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between moored vessels and between the docks/mooring piles and vessels, to help prevent trapping or crushing of manatees. The Consolidated Authorization also requires the Project to be constructed and operated in accordance with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work. These conditions include: instructing all personnel, including construction personnel, about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees, as well as about civil and criminal penalties imposed for harming, harassing, or killing manatees; operating all vessels associated with construction of the Project at "idle speed/no wake" at all times in the vicinity of the Project and where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom; the requirement that all in-water operations, including vessels, must shut down if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operation and cannot resume until the manatee either moves beyond the 50-foot radius of the operation or 30 minutes has elapsed and the manatee has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation; the installation of specified temporary signage; and the installation of specified permanent signage. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or listed species and their habitats. Water Quality Impacts As previously noted, the St. Johns River, including the Back Channel, is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300 apply to the Back Channel. The Back Channel portion of the St. Johns River has been identified as impaired for lead, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-303. The credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project, if constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization along with additional conditions discussed below, will not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Specifically, the Project will be required to install and maintain turbidity barriers during the construction phase to help ensure that any sediment disturbed during construction does not cause or contribute to water quality violations. Additionally, as discussed above, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of each vessel, with the motor down, and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. This will help prevent the suspension of sediments, and any constituents in those sediments, from being suspended in the water column and causing or contributing to water quality violations, as a result of the Project. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the storage or stockpiling of tools, equipment, materials, such as lumber, pilings, riprap, and debris within wetlands or other waters of the state; prohibits the discharge of construction debris into waters of the state; prohibits the overboard discharge of trash, human or animal waste and fuel at the docks; and requires all work to be done in periods of average or low water, so that impacts to submerged resources, including bottom sediment, can be avoided. Collectively, these conditions help provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the Project, including the mooring and operation of vessels in the Lease area, will not violate water quality standards. White testified that, generally, the water quality in, and in the vicinity, of marinas degrades over time due to the discharge of oils, greases, and other waste; and the suspension in the water column of sediments and toxins, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals in those sediments, as a result of propeller dredging. However, Irwin testified that because the Project site is located in a tidally-influenced area, with an approximate 3.5-foot tide range over multiple tide changes per day, the Project site will be adequately flushed such that there will not be an accumulation of pollutants that may violate water quality standards. Based on Irwin's persuasive testimony, it is determined that water quality violations will not occur due to an accumulation of pollutants at the Project site. To further ensure that the Project will not degrade water quality or violate water quality standards at the Project site, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to submit a facility management plan to address maintenance and unexpected spills of fuels and other pollutants. The facility management plan must include a spill response plan for fuel spills; a plan for maintenance of gray water collection systems and return systems, to the extent applicable; a plan addressing garbage collection and vessel cleaning systems to prevent disposal of waste in wetlands; and an education plan for all employees at the Project regarding fueling, sewage and gray water pump operations, waste management, and facility maintenance. Sewage pump-out facilities are not proposed as part of the Project. Shafnacker testified, and the Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section currently states, that domestic waste from boat heads will be handled through use of a waterless incinerating toilet (Incinolet or similar), and the remaining ash shall not be disposed of in waters of the state. However, it is noted that this requirement is not currently included as an enforceable condition. The undersigned finds that a specific condition expressly prohibiting any sewage pump-out at the docks or on vessels, requiring the use of an incinerator toilet, and prohibiting the discharged of ash waste should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate water quality standards due to the discharge of sewage into waters of the state. The Consolidated Authorization, Project Description section, states: This permit does not authorize the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; the discharge of waste into the water; liveaboards; fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations; repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into Waters of the State. Major repair, reconstruction, and/or other service must be performed at a facility approved for vessel haul-out and repair. This does not preclude the light maintenance allowed under Specific Condition 18 to be performed at the facility. This language, which expressly identifies numerous activities that are prohibited in connection with the operation of the Project, is not currently included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. The undersigned determines that in order to protect water quality at the Project site, this language must be included as a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization. As previously noted above, the Back Channel is impaired for lead. Both Irwin and Hallett testified that Workboats would not use lead paint or lead-containing welding equipment on the docks or vessels moored in the Lease area. To provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not constitute a source of lead that will contribute to the impaired status of the Back Channel, a specific condition prohibiting the use of lead-based paints and other sources of lead should be included as an enforceable condition in the Consolidated Authorization. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that, with the addition of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated as a result of construction or operation of the Project. Adverse Secondary Impacts to Water Resources Secondary impacts are impacts caused by other relevant activities very closely linked or causally related to the activity itself, rather than the direct impacts of the proposed activity itself.12/ The conditions currently included in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water quality. Additionally, the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, aquatic or wetland-dependent species, or listed species. As discussed above, the salt marsh habitat will not be disturbed during construction and operation of the Project, and the benthic habitat will be protected by the minimum 12-inch vessel to the top of submerged resource clearance requirement discussed above. These Project features and conditions will help ensure that there are no adverse impacts to wetland functions and to aquatic or wetland-dependent species, such as fish and benthic fauna. Additionally, the Project will be located within a slow speed, minimum wake zone, and Workboats will be required to operate all of its vessels in compliance with that standard within the 300-foot buffer along the shorelines of the Back Channel. This operational constraint, along with additional manatee protection conditions discussed above, provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to manatees. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that, with the addition of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not have adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Levels and Surface Water Flows As discussed above, the Project will be constructed waterward of the mean high water line, and will consist of piling-supported and floating docks and mooring piles that will not adversely impact the maintenance of minimum surface or ground water levels or surface water flows at the Project site. Impacts to Works of the District The Project is not proximate to any works of the district, as approved pursuant to section 373.086; accordingly, it will not cause adverse impacts to such works. Capable of Performing and Functioning as Designed The Project was designed by an engineer and will be installed by Shafnacker, who is an experienced marine contractor. The Consolidated Authorization requires that the Project must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and performance criteria. Within 30 days of completion of construction of the Project, Workboats must submit an as-built survey, signed and sealed by a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G17-7, depicting the boundaries of the Lease, and showing the size and dimensions of all existing overwater structures and activities within the Lease area. Additionally, the surveyor must provide a statement that all of the depicted structures and activities are located within the Lease area; or identify, and depict on an as-built survey, any structures or activities outside of the Lease area. These requirements will ensure that the Project performs and functions as designed. Financial, Legal, and Administrative Capability Rule 62-330.301(1)(j) requires an applicant for an environmental resource permit to provide reasonable assurance that the project will be conducted with a person having the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.13/ The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I (General and Environmental) ("Handbook"), section 1.5.1., which provides further guidance regarding compliance with the requirement in rule 62-330.301(1)(j), states that "[c]ompliance with this requirement must be demonstrated through subsections 62-330.060(3) and (4), the certification required in the Application Form 62-330.060(1), and section 12.0 of the Handbook." As part of the Application, Workboats submitted copies of warranty deeds for lots 6, 7, and 8, and Disclaimer No. 22146 for Lot 9. These documents establish that Shafnacker holds title to the uplands on lots 6 through 9 and to certain submerged lands waterward of Lot 9. Pursuant to Handbook section 4.2.3, these documents satisfy the "sufficient upland interest" requirement in rules 62.330.060(3) and 62- 330.301(1)(j). Rule 62-330.060(3) also requires the applicant and/or the applicant's agent to sign specific parts of the application. Here, Workboats, and Shafnacker, as Workboats' agent, signed the pertinent portions of the Application, as required by this rule. Rule 62-330.060(4) and pertinent provisions of section 12.0 of the Handbook——specifically, provisions in sections 12.1 and 12.2——require that once construction of the permitted activity is complete, it must be converted to the operational phase by submitting an as-built certification and request for conversion to operational phase. Here, the Consolidated Authorization for the Project requires submittal of this form, once construction is complete, as a condition for operation of the Project. These are the only rules and Handbook provisions regarding demonstration of financial, legal, and administrative capability that are pertinent to the Project. No other environmental resource permitting rules or Handbook provisions impose any other requirements regarding financial capability, and the City has not identified any case law or other statutes or rules imposing additional pertinent financial capability requirements. Thus, the evidence establishes that Workboats meets rule 62-330.301(1)(j) and all other pertinent rules and Handbook requirements, showing it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure the Project will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. The City did not present any evidence to show that Workboats lacks the financial, legal, and administrative capability to undertake the Project as permitted. Compliance with Rule 62-330.302 For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project, it also must provide reasonable assurance that the Project meets the requirements of rule 62-330.302,14/ which establishes additional standards for issuance of environmental resource permits for activities in surface waters or wetlands. Adverse Effects to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare, or Property of Others In determining whether a proposed activity in surface waters or wetlands would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others, the focus is on environmental hazards or injuries that may result from the proposed activity.15/ Thus, alleged threats to personal safety and enjoyment of neighboring property resulting from alleged unlawful activities on the upland areas of lots 6, 7, and 916/—— which are not part of the Project——are not appropriately considered as part of the public interest determination under rule 62-330.302. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions aimed at ensuring that water quality is not degraded and water quality standards are not violated due to the Project. These conditions, along with conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, provide reasonable assurance that the public health, safety and welfare, and property of others will not be adversely affected as a result of water quality degradation or violations. The Project, as designed and approved, will have 25-foot setbacks from the eastern and western riparian rights lines for lots 6 through 9. These setbacks will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not interfere with the adjoining properties' riparian rights. The City presented the testimony of O'Connor, who opined that some of Workboats' vessels, operated at full throttle, were capable of generating a wake as high as three feet. O'Connor testified that a wake of this height could damage docks along the shoreline of the Back Channel, cause shoreline erosion, and create a safety hazard for recreational boaters, kayakers, and others engaged in in-water recreational activities. As discussed above, the Back Channel is approximately 1,300 feet wide at the Project site. Per the location map provided as part of the specific purpose survey, the portion of the Back Channel east of the Project site is at least this wide for its entire length. Shafnacker testified, credibly, that his vessels typically operate closer to the Blount Island shoreline than the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so are approximately 800 feet away from the northern shoreline where the residential docks and access points for boaters, kayakers, and other recreational uses are located. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that Workboats' boats and barges would be operated at speeds such that the highest wake that any of his vessels would generate is two feet. Based on the foregoing, and with the inclusion in the Consolidated Authorization of the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, Workboats has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others. Adverse Effects to Conservation of Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species, and their Habitats As previously discussed, the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to avoid impacts to emergent grasses during construction and operation of the Project, and prohibits Workboats from storing or stockpiling tools, equipment, materials, and debris within wetlands. These conditions will help ensure that the Project will have minimal impact on the salt marsh habitat at the Project site. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a condition prohibiting the construction of mooring areas over submerged grass beds. This, along with the condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between vessel bottom and submerged resources, will help protect the benthic habitat at the Project site. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect manatees from impacts due to the Project. Specifically, bumpers or fenders must be installed and maintained to provide at least three feet of separation between docks or mooring piles and vessels, and between vessels, and a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the top of the submerged resources at mean low water must be maintained. The Project also must be constructed and operated in accordance with the FWC's Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, which imposes construction and operational requirements to protect manatees for the life of the Project. The inclusion of these conditions in the Consolidated Authorization provides reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened species and their habitats. Adverse Effects to Navigation, Flow of Water, or Shoaling The Back Channel is navigable, and is over 1,300 feet wide at the point at which the Project is proposed to be located. It is used by a mix of recreational vessels and commercial and industrial vessels, although, as noted above, the low-clearance bridges on the western end of Blount Island effectively limit the commercial and industrial traffic to smaller-sized vessels. As depicted on the specific purpose survey submitted as part of the Application, the southern boundary of the Lease extends waterward approximately 196 feet from the shoreline at the eastern boundary of the Lease, and approximately 174 feet from the shoreline at the western boundary of the Lease. Thus, at its most waterward point, the preempted area of the Lease will extend waterward approximately 14 percent of the width of the Back Channel.17/ The specific purpose survey shows docks A and C extending waterward approximately 60 feet from the shoreline, and shows Dock B extending waterward approximately 45 feet from the shoreline.18/ The three three-pile dolphins, which will be used to moor the largest barges, will be set back approximately 38 feet from the southern boundary of the Lease. Shafnacker testified that barges moored at the three-pile mooring dolphins will be tied between the dolphins, by ropes at their bows and sterns, to ensure that they do not drift out of the Lease area and create a navigational hazard. The Consolidated Authorization contains a condition requiring the waterward ends of the docks and the mooring dolphins to be marked by reflectors so as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. However, at the hearing, Shafnacker testified that he intended to mark the dolphins and barges with solar battery-powered lights so that they would be more visible at night than if only reflectors are used. Based on this testimony, it is recommended that Specific Condition No. 13 in the Consolidated Authorization be modified to require the barges and mooring dolphins to be marked by lights, as well as reflectors, to make them more visible from the water. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Project, as proposed, will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel. Specifically, the Lease will not extend a significant distance out into the Back Channel; approximately 86 percent of the width of the Back Channel at the Project site remains open for navigation by the public. Additionally, the docks will be located relatively close to the shoreline, well within the Lease preempted area, and will be marked so that they are visible from the water. The mooring dolphins also will be set back a substantial distance from the Lease boundary and will be marked so as to be visible from the water. The evidence shows that the Project will not have any adverse effects on the flow of water. As discussed above, the Project will not impede, impound, or otherwise affect the flow of water. The evidence also shows that the Project will not cause harmful shoaling or erosion. No dredging or placement of dredged spoil is proposed or authorized as part of the project, and the Consolidated Authorization requires Workboats to use silt fencing and other specified best management practices to stabilize the sediment and prevent erosion and shoaling during construction of the Project. For these reasons, it is determined that the Project will not adversely impact navigation in the Back Channel, will not adversely affect the flow of water, and will not result in harmful shoaling or erosion. Adverse Effects to Fishing, Recreational Values, or Marine Productivity The Back Channel is a meander of the St. Johns River that no longer is used as the main navigational channel for the river. Thus, it is relatively calm and is extensively used for boating, kayaking, swimming, fishing, jet skiing, and other in- water recreational activities. The evidence establishes that the Project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity. The salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of the Project, which serves as the base of the estuarine food chain and as a nursery and refuge for small fish, will not be disturbed during construction of the Project. As such, the Project will not adversely affect fish habitat or marine productivity. Additionally, because the Project will be constructed within the boundaries of the Lease and set back 25 feet from the riparian lines for the adjoining properties, it will not physically interfere with or displace fishing activities from those properties, or from any other property in the vicinity. The Consolidated Authorization imposes conditions to protect water quality during construction and operation of the Project. These conditions, and the additional conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, will protect water quality, and therefore help protect fish habitat and marine productivity. The credible evidence establishes that vessel operation associated with the Project will not adversely affect boating, kayaking, fishing, or other recreational activities in the vicinity. As discussed above, the Project is located in a slow speed, minimum wake zone that extends 300 feet from the shoreline into the Back Channel, and all vessels traversing into and out of the Lease area must operate at this speed until they are beyond 300 feet from the shorelines. Additionally, Shafnacker credibly testified that once out of the 300-foot slow speed, minimum wake zone, the vessels will operate at speeds such that they will generate a wake of two feet, at most. The evidence showed that wakes of this height are not anticipated to adversely affect recreational activities in the Back Channel. Temporary or Permanent Activity The Project will be permanent. However, the evidence establishes that there are numerous permanent docking facilities along the northern shoreline of the Back Channel, so the Project is not unique in that regard. Adverse Impacts to Significant Historical or Archaeological Resources The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any adverse impacts to such resources. As a precaution, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring Workboats to immediately cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance and to contact DHR if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, project points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlements are encountered at any time within the Project site. Accordingly, it is determined that the Project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions The salt marsh wetlands in the vicinity of the Project are healthy, high-functioning, and part of a "living shoreline" that will not be disturbed by construction or operation of the Project. Although Dock C will be constructed across a very small patch of salt marsh, it will be elevated to reduce shading and will be constructed using minimally-impactful construction techniques. Any impacts to the salt marsh from the Project will be de minimis. The Project is also not anticipated to adversely affect the condition and relative value of the benthic habitat on the Project site. As discussed above, the Consolidated Authorization imposes a minimum 12-inch clearance from vessel bottom to top of submerged resources requirement, which will help prevent physical impact to, and propeller dredging of, the benthic habitat at the Project site. Conditions in the Consolidated Authorization, as well as the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, also will help protect the current condition and relative value of the salt marsh and benthic habitat on the Project site. Unacceptable Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters With the conditions currently contained in the Consolidated Authorization, along with the conditions addressed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, the Project is not anticipated to have adverse water quality impacts. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, protected species, and their habitat. Therefore, with the inclusion of the conditions discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, and 70, above, reasonable assurance has been provided that the Project will not have unacceptable cumulative impacts, in violation of rule 62- 330.302(1)(b). Past Violations of Water and Wetlands Statutes and Rules The City presented evidence consisting of videos and photographs taken from the Wood residence immediately east of Lot 9. These videos and photographs show a variety of activities that are potentially damaging to surface waters and wetlands, including dumping sediment into surface waters from a moored vessel; earthmoving; moving floating docks onto, and off of, the shoreline using heavy equipment; operating heavy equipment in wetlands and surface waters along the shoreline; and mooring boats in extremely shallow water. Wood testified, credibly, that he contacted DEP numerous times, and that DEP occasionally visited Shafnacker's property——typically days after Wood had contacted the agency. Upon inspecting the Workboats site, DEP determined that barges or other equipment or materials had been dragged onto the shoreline without proper authorization, and DEP issued a compliance assistance offer letter to address this noncompliance. DEP ultimately determined that, rather than taking enforcement action for this noncompliance, a salt marsh restoration corrective action requirement should be included in the Consolidated Authorization. The corrective action conditions require Workboats to submit a salt marsh restoration plan and impose restoration plan completion timeframes, success criteria, and monitoring requirements. Given Workboats' noncompliance history, the undersigned determines that in order to provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not violate environmental resource permitting statutes and rules, the conditions addressed above in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, must be included as enforceable conditions in the Consolidated Authorization. Compliance with Chapter 18-21 for Issuance of the Lease For Workboats to be entitled to issuance of the Lease, it must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it will meet the applicable requirements and standards codified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 for issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands lease. Water Dependent Activities Rule 18-21.004(1)(g) requires activities on sovereignty submerged lands to be limited to those that are water dependent. A "water dependent activity" is one that can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.003(71). The Project's proposed docks, mooring piles, mooring dolphins, and vessel mooring operations are water dependent activities. The Project's primary purpose is the water dependent activity of mooring vessels and the ancillary activity of loading vessels with supplies as part of Workboats' operation. Case law interpreting Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 holds that because the primary purpose of docks and other mooring structures is to moor vessels, they are "water dependent" activities for purposes of rule 18-21.004(1)(g).19/ As discussed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, and 70, above, a condition should be included in the environmental resource permit and Lease specifically prohibiting any major repair, reconstruction, or maintenance activities within the Lease area, in order to ensure that only water dependent activities are conducted within the Lease area. Resource Management Requirements Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) requires sovereignty submerged lands to be managed primarily for the maintenance of natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Additionally, the rule authorizes compatible secondary uses that will not detract from or interfere with these primary purposes. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the Project, as proposed and conditioned in the Consolidated Authorization, will not adversely affect salt marsh or benthic habitat, will not degrade water quality or cause or contribute to water quality violations, and will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, listed species, and marine productivity. Accordingly, the Project will not detract from, or interfere, with fish and wildlife propagation. The evidence also establishes that the Project will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses. As discussed above, the Back Channel is wide enough to accommodate vessels traveling to and from the Project site without detracting from or interfering with recreational activities conducted in the Back Channel. Additionally, vessels traveling to and from the Project site must be operated in accordance with the slow speed, minimum wake zone within the 300-foot shoreline buffer, and will be operated at speeds that will generate a maximum two-foot wake outside of the shoreline buffer. The evidence shows that these speeds will not detract from, or interfere with, traditional recreational uses in the Back Channel. The Project also has been designed, and will be operated, to minimize or eliminate wetland vegetation impacts and impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and cultural resources. Specifically, as discussed above, impacts to the salt marsh habitat have been minimized through the use of minimally- impactful construction techniques and elevating docks four feet above the marsh to reduce shading of the marsh grasses. Additionally, the 12-inch minimum vessel/submerged resource clearance condition will reduce impacts to the benthic habitat in the Lease area. As discussed above, DHR did not provide comments indicating that significant historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be present at the Project site, and no evidence was presented showing that the Project would have any impacts to such resources. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition establishing protocol for Workboats to follow if any specified artifacts are encountered at any time within the Project site. Rule 18-21.004(7)(e) requires that construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity not adversely affect any species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in FWC rules. As discussed above, the Florida Manatee is the only listed species determined to be present the Project site. The Project site is located within an established slow speed, minimum wake zone, and vessels entering and leaving the Project site must comply with this speed limitation within the 300-foot shoreline buffer area. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization includes several conditions designed to reduce and minimize potential impacts to manatees that may enter the Lease area. Collectively, these requirements and conditions will help ensure that the construction and operation of the Project will not adversely affect manatees. Riparian Rights As part of the Application, Workboats submitted deeds and Disclaimer No. 22146, demonstrating that Shafnacker holds title to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. These documents constitute "satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest," as that term is defined in rule 18.21.003(60). Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Project is proposed to be constructed in the riparian area appurtenant to lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, and all structures that are part of the Project will be set back at least 25 feet from the eastern and western riparian lines for the upland property. No evidence was presented showing that the construction or operation of the Project would unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners, in violation of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). It is determined that the Project will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners, so meets the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 102 through 107, above, it is determined that the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard, in violation of rule 18- 21.004(7)(g). However, the inclusion of a condition requiring lighting of the mooring dolphins, discussed in paragraph 106, is recommended to ensure the Project will not constitute a navigational hazard. Lease Fees As part of the Application, Workboats submitted a financial affidavit attesting to its ability to pay the required fees for the Lease, imposed pursuant to rules 18-21.008 and 18-21.011. Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004 establishes the sovereignty submerged lands management policies, standards, and criteria to be used in determining whether to approve activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The term "public interest" is defined to mean "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of the proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(51). To meet the "not contrary to the public interest" standard in rule 18-21.004(1)(a), it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998). Here, the City asserts that the Lease is contrary to the public interest because it will cause adverse impacts to benthic and salt marsh habitat; discharge pollutants into the waters of the Back Channel; harm manatees; pose a navigational hazard; and detract from, and interfere with, recreational activities in the Back Channel. However, as discussed above, the evidence shows that the Project has been designed specifically to minimize many of these impacts, and the Consolidated Authorization contains conditions specifically aimed at preventing many of these alleged impacts. As discussed above, other conditions, discussed in paragraphs 68, 69, 70, 106, and 138, also should be included in the Consolidated Authorization to ensure that the Project will not cause adverse impacts to habitat resources, water quality, manatees, and navigation. Case law interpreting the public interest test in rule in 18-21.004(1)(a) applicable to proprietary approvals holds that when proposed structures or activities meet the applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21, those structures or activities are presumed to be not contrary to the public interest. See Spinrad v. Guerro and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-2254 (Fla. DOAH July 25, 2014), modified in part, Case No. 13-0858 (Fla. DEP Sept. 8, 2014); Haskett v. Rosati and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0465 (Fla. DOAH July 31, 2013), modified in part, Case No. 13-0040 (Fla. DEP Oct. 29, 2013). Here, Workboats has demonstrated that the Project meets all applicable standards and criteria in chapter 18-21; thus, the Project is presumed to be not contrary to the public interest under rule 18-21.004(1)(a).20/ The City did not present persuasive evidence showing that, on balance, the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the Project exceed the demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits accruing to the public.21/ Accordingly, it is determined that the Project meets the public interest test in rule 18- 21.004(1)(a). Entitlement to Environmental Resource Permit Workboats met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit by entering into evidence the Application, Notice of Intent, Consolidated Authorization, and supporting information. Workboats also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet its burden to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the environmental resource permit. The burden then shifted to the City to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Project does not comply with sections 373.413 and 373.414 and applicable environmental resource permitting rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that the City did not meet its burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined that, with the inclusion of conditions in the Consolidated Authorization addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, and 106, above, Workboats meets all applicable requirements for issuance of the environmental resource permit for the Project. Entitlement to Lease As discussed above, Workboats bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Workboats met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the Lease for the Project. The City's Standing As previously noted, the City is a consolidated municipality and county political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. On or about July 26, 2018, the Council of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, adopted Resolution 2018-499-A, finding that issuance of the environmental resource permit and Lease affects the substantial interests of a significant number of residents in Duval County. The City initiated this proceeding by filing its Petition with DEP on August 17, 2018, alleging that the Project will have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the air, water, or other natural resources of the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft amended Permit No. 16-0345934-003-EI, as modified to include the conditions addressed in paragraphs 35, 68, 69, 70, 106, and 137, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2019.
