Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. owns and operates a sewage treatment plant at 3015 Southwest 54th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It presently services the needs of a population of about 2500 primarily located in three trailer parks, certain warehouses, a 153 room hotel, and several other business establishments. The plant was constructed and operated by a lessee of Petitioner's owners, but, in July 1979, Petitioner became the owner and operator of the facility. At that time, it was determined necessary to secure new operators and upgrade the plant equipment and method of process in order to properly service the existing and anticipated future number of customers in the area covered by a Public Service Commission franchise. Although the plant had been operating at a permitted capacity of 0.25 million gallons per day (MGD), Petitioner planned to expand the capacity to 0.60 MGD by modifying the aeration tank, and adding tertiary sand filters and equipment for clarification. Upon assuming control of the plant, Petitioner found that the 0.25 MGD permitted capacity had been exceeded by approximately 120,000 gallons per day for a number of years. Petitioner estimates that a population of 6,000 could be served under its new proposed design capacity. (Testimony of Forman, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to Petitioner's application for a construction permit, dated May 25, 1979, to modify the existing treatment plant, Respondent issued permit No. DC06-21789 on August 6, 1979. The permit specified that it was for construction of additional tank capacity for an existing 0.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant intended to approve effluent quality, and further stated that plant design capacity would remain at that figure. A subsequent letter from Respondent's subdistrict manager to Petitioner on January 15, 1980, stated that an evaluation of the quality of the surface waters receiving the plant discharge and the effect of such increased discharge would have to be made before processing a request for an increase in permitted flow. (Exhibit 7) On February 8, 1980, Respondent issued a temporary operating permit for Petitioner to temporarily operate a 0.25 MGD contact stabilization sewage treatment plant, including additional tank capacity and tertiary filtration. Specific conditions attached to the permit stated that it was issued to give the permittee a reasonable period of time to complete construction of the modification outlined in DER Permit DC06-21789 and for subsequent assessment of the effects of discharge on receiving waters. The conditions further required that the facility continue to achieve 90 percent removal of BOD5 and total suspended solids at all times with specified average daily discharges of such substances. Another condition required that the effluent from the plant be adequately chlorinated at all times so as to yield the minimum chlorine residual of 0.5 parts per million after a minimum contact period of 15 minutes. (Exhibit 8) Thereafter, on July 21, 1980, petitioner filed the instant application for an operation permit for the facility at a design capacity of 0.60 MGD. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of completion of construction. By letter of December 16, 1980, Respondent's South Florida Subdistrict Manager advised Petitioner that the application for an operating permit had been denied for the reason that monitoring of the Class III receiving waters by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board indicated that the dissolved oxygen concentration was frequently below the minimum of 5 milligrams per liter required by Section 17-3.161(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that Petitioner's plant contributed to the substandard conditions in those waters. Petitioner thereafter requested a Section 120.57(1), F.S., hearing. (Exhibits 1-2, 4, 8) Petitioner's plant discharges into the North New River Canal through a six inch effluent pipe. The canal extends from Lake Okeechobee to the intracoastal waterway approximately five miles in distance from the point of discharge of Petitioner's plant. Monitoring of water quality in the canal for the past several years by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board shows that the dissolved oxygen concentrations at various sampling stations have ranged from below one part per million to in excess of five parts per million, depending upon the season of the year. However, at no station did the dissolved oxygen concentration reach an average of five parts per million. In addition, the tests also showed that BOD5 is generally low in the canal waters. (Testimony of Mazzella, Exhibits 1, 3, 5) Petitioner's modified plant is now capable of treating 0.60 MGD and meets current basic state requirements of 90 percent (secondary) removal of BOD and total suspended solids. In fact, the plant has tertiary treatment and can consistently operate at a level of 95 percent treatment. The data submitted by the applicant as to effluent water quality characteristics showed removal of 98 percent BOD, 97 percent suspended solids, 50 percent total nitrogen, and 25 percent total phosphorus with an average chlorine residual in the effluent of 0.2 parts per million. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent has been established at 6.5 milligrams per liter. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Dodd, Exhibit 1) Respondent's district personnel took one 24-hour sample of the effluent from Petitioner's plant in March 1981 and determined that a concentrate of 14.6 milligrams per liter of ammonia was being discharged to receiving waters. Respondent therefore determined that the dissolved oxygen levels of the canal would be further degraded because approximately 48 to 50 parts per million of dissolved oxygen would be necessary to offset the effects of oxygen removal resulting from the ammonia discharge. Respondent further found that, although the effluent from the plant had 6.5 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen, the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen being discharged could lead to algal blooms and consequent eventual eutrophication of its waters. Respondent's reviewing personnel therefore considers that there would be negative impacts upon the receiving waters if Petitioner discharged its prior licensed capacity of 250,000 gallons per day, and that a discharge of 600,000 gallons per day would double such impacts. Respondent's personnel therefore believes that although Petitioner's facility meets the basic secondary treatment requirements of Rule 17-6.01, Florida Administrative Code, it does not meet the water quality-based effluent limitation specified in Rule 17-6.10. In order to meet such requirements, it would be necessary to redesign the plant for more efficient removal of nutrients or to redirect the discharge. (Testimony of Mazzella) Other facilities adjacent to or near the North New River Canal discharge directly or indirectly into the canal waters and contribute to an unknown degree to the poor quality of the canal waters. Additionally, agricultural use of land produces stormwater runoff containing fertilizer residue into the canal in an unknown amount. A sewage treatment plant operates at optimum level of treatment when it discharges at about 50 percent of its treatment capacity. (Testimony of Mazzella) In 1983, Broward County will require Petitioner's plant to conform to state advanced waste treatment criteria which will provide for additional removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. To meet this requirement, Petitioner, plans to investigate the possibilities of utilizing a landlocked lake on its property near the treatment plant as a seepage pond. Although Petitioner's plant is identified in area regional plans to be diverted to the Hollywood wastewater treatment plant in the future, there is presently no target date for tying in to such a regional facility. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent issue a permit to Petitioner for the operation of its sewage treatment plant, with appropriate conditions as designed to protect the receiving waters. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 27th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred Clark, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin S. Friedman and R.M.C. Rose, Esquires Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
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
The Issue There are two sets of issues to be considered in this matter which require separate determination. The issues in D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133 pertain to a notice of violation and orders for corrective action filed against Michael H. Hatfield related to the alleged construction of a causeway from a mainland shoreline to an island owned by Hatfield. In particular, that action by the Department alleges certain violations of environmental law and demands restoration of the area in which the causeway was constructed. The companion case, D.O.A.H. Case No. 84-0465, concerns Hatfield's request to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island in a location apart from the existing causeway. The Department has denied Hatfield's request for necessary permission to install that causeway.
Findings Of Fact Michael H. Hatfield is the owner of property in Marion County, Florida. That property is located on Lake Nicatoon, a 307 acre nonmeandered water body. Lake Nicatoon is a Class III water body as defined in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. To gain access to the island from the mainland, Hatfield sought permission from the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island. The area between the mainland and the island is subject to water level fluctuations in that at times it is essentially dry and other times is under the waters of Lake Nicatoon. His application for environmental permits was filed on May 13, 1980. A copy of that application may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. His proposed project calls for the placement of approximately 525 cubic yards of fill in wetlands and littoral zones adjacent to the mainland and island. Per the application, the causeway would be 7 yards wide at the bottom and a length of approximately 73 yards and is to be constituted of sand and crushed concrete block. In particular, Hatfield wishes access to allow construction of a residence on the island and to gain entrance to the residence after construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and on May 27, 1980, made a request to Hatfield to provide additional information related to his proposal. A copy of that request for additional information may be found as part of Department Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. Among the items requested was information from local government related to that entity's approval of the project in accordance with Section 253.124, Florida Statutes. This request was made based upon the perception by the Department of Environmental Regulation that Lake Nicatoon was found in the Florida Lakes Gazateer of Meandered Water bodies. The Department continued to operate on this erroneous assumption throughout the permit review process. Unknown to the Department, the lake was a nonmeandered lake which was discovered by Hatfield and verified on September 8, 1980, through an affidavit of the Division Director of State Lands for the State of Florida. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. In effect, although the Department had made a good faith request for information pursuant to chapter 253.124, Florida Statutes, that information was not necessary because Lake Nicatoon is nonmeandered and not subject to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, jurisdiction. Additionally, the requested hydrographic information pertaining to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, was not needed. Among the other items requested in the way of additional information was item No. 6, pertaining to the placement of fill. That request was not complied with. Requested information related to a plan view was not complied with. Requested information in the category of "notes and drawings" was not complied with. Requested information pertaining to plans for complying with state water quality standards for Class III waters as related in Section 17- 3.121, Florida Administrative Code, was not complied with. These materials were relevant to the permit review process and the request for the information was never modified nor abandoned by the Department, notwithstanding discussions between the parties in an attempt to reconcile their differences in the permit assessment process. Those suggested alternatives to grant Hatfield access were not satisfactory to Hatfield and the original description of his project as set forth in his application of May 1980, has remained constant throughout the permit review process to include the final hearing. Generally, the parties' discussion of the installation or a bridge between the mainland and the island or the placement of a temporary steel road during the course of construction of his residence on the island did not promote a modified permit application. Finally the indication by staff members of the Department of Environmental Regulation that the project envisioned by his original application would not likely be approved did not cause a change in the obligation to respond to the request for additional information. Even though Hatfield became aware that it was unlikely that the staff would look with favor upon the project as proposed, in making its recommendation as to the issuance or nonissuance of the permit, the staff attitudes in the review process could only have become accepted with finality at the point of entering the Recommended Order. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Hatfield to respond to the request for additional information, in that the information sought was relevant to a consideration of the project which would be examined in the course of the final hearing. The discussions, related to the grant of permission to gain access by placement of a structure between the landslide and the island, entered into by the Department and Hatfield, briefly mentioned before, involved 1) the possibility of the construction of a bridge, 2) use of a metal roadway during the buildout of his residence and 3) his proposal as offered through the application. The bridge proposal advanced by Hatfield was for a span of 20 to 30 feet end the Department desired a span of 200 feet. The reason for the length of bridge required by the Department was to assure protection of a reasonable amount of the lake ecosystem between the landside and the island. Hatfield found the Department's proposed bridge length to be unacceptable due to financial reasons. He likewise did not like the idea of a temporary utilization of a steel roadway to the island during the construction of his residence. Hatfield preferred a permanent road allowing vehicular traffic from the mainland to the island. In conjunction with this alternative offered by the Department, Hatfield could later access the island by utilization of a boat on those occasions when the waters of Lake Nicatoon stood between the landside and the island. While Respondent's application for dredge and fill permit was being considered, an inspection of the property made in the summer of 1982, revealed that a causeway connecting the mainland and Hatfield's island property had been constructed. This causeway is depicted in red on Department's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, a series of aerial photographs. Ground shots of the causeway may be found as Department of Environmental Regulation's photographic Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9, admitted into evidence. The causeway was primarily constructed by the dredge of material and placement of the material immediately next to the dredge site with an overlay of offsite fill. Respondent was responsible for the construction of this causeway. The causeway is not found in the location contemplated by his permit application and permission was not given by the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct the causeway. This construction occurred in an area dominated by the vegetative species beak rush (Rhynchospora tracyi). Having placed the causeway in this location, Hatfield has created a stationary installation which caused pollution in the course of that construction and can reasonably be expected to be a future source of pollution, in that the dredging and placement of fill and the effects of the structure after construction have emitted and shall emit in the future, substances that are harmful to plant and animal life, in contravention of the Department of Environmental Regulation's rules. By this installation, an alteration in the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the state has been occasioned by the destruction of submerged land vegetational communities which provide water treatment, and food and habitat for fish and wildlife. When the fill was placed, the filtration and assimilation system of Lake Nicatoon was adversely affected through the removal of existing wetland vegetation. Were the applicant granted the opportunity to install the proposed causeway, the same adverse effects or problems could be expected with that installation. Having discovered the existence of the causeway, and after warning Hatfield that this installation was in violation of regulatory statutes and rules related to the Department's responsibility in environmental matters, Hatfield was served with a notice of violation and orders for corrective action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. The date of this action was June 1983. A copy of that document may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. In this same time frame, the Department continued to evaluate the permit application of Hatfield related to the proposed causeway and an application appraisal for that proposal was made on June 6, 1983. A copy of that appraisal may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Subsequent to that time, and having failed to receive the aforementioned requested additional information from the Respondent, the Department issued its intent to deny the application related to the proposed causeway. A copy of the intent to deny may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The date of the denial was November 4, 1983. A more detailed examination of the area in question on the northern shoreline of the lake on the mainland side, shows that natural vegetation has been replaced with a Bahla type of grass. The gradient dropping toward the lake proper reveals upland grasses giving way to submerged species such as maiden cane (Panicum hemitom), pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) and pond lilies (Nymphaea). In this area, the transitional species to be found include St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum) and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Between the landside and the island, in the direction of the island, there are less rooted plants. The dominant plants in this vicinity are pond lilies. The distance to be traversed between the landside and the island related to landward extent of the lake on the landside and island where the proposed causeway would be located is approximately 550 feet, and net the 225 feet described in the application. As you approach the island from the landside, the last approximately 150 feet along the proposed causeway's alignment is dominated by transitional freshwater species to include doheen holly (Ilex cassine), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). The island, itself, is dominated by live oak and sable palm. To summarize, the area between the landside shoreline along the lake and the island shoreline, is dominated by submerged and transitional freshwater species as found in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. In the area of the proposed causeway are found detrital feeders, the most numerous of which are amphipods. There ore also larval insects and gastropods, bivalves and freshwater shrimp. Crayfish, frogs and tadpoles are found in this area. In addition, species of fish include mosquito fish, least killfish, shiners, blue spotted sunfish, juvenile largemouth bass, silverside and juvenile catfish. Bird species observed in the area are blue heron, snowy egret, lympkins and ibis. Soft-shell turtles have also been observed in the vicinity of the project site. Should the construction of the causeway be allowed, short and long-term adverse effects on surface waters of Lake Nicatoon can be expected and these effects will be negative. With installation of the causeway, there would be a permanent elimination of the water bodies' littoral zone vegetative community which is important in converting available dissolved nutrients into food material in the aquatic ecosystem. The vegetation also assists in the cleansing of the ambient water and by that action reducing pollution loading. With the construction of the causeway, state water quality standards related to biological integrity, Section 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code; nutrients, Section 17-3.121(17), Florida Administrative Code; and turbidity, Section 17-3.061(2)(r), Florida Administrative Code, can reasonably expected to be violated. Hatfield has failed to give reasonable assurances that the short and long-term impacts of the construction of the causeway would not violate and continue to violate water quality standards as alluded to. These problems as described exist while the unauthorized causeway remains. Hatfield, by actions involving private parties and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has sought necessary easements to gain access to his island property. While successful in this undertaking, these successes do not include the grant of a prohibition against the Department of Environmental Regulation performing its regulatory responsibility. In particular the decisions in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Marion County, Florida, Case No. 83-1826-C, Michael Hatfield, Plaintiff v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Defendant, granting partial Summary Judgment for the plaintiff and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss do not bar the Department from fulfillment of its regulatory charge. A copy of these decisions of court are found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In order to return the area where the unauthorized causeway has been placed to its prior existing condition, it would be necessary to remove the fill material and return elevations at the site to their prior level before the construction of the causeway. In addition, beak rush should be replanted in the areas where this dominant vegetation has been removed. An amount of $30.75 has been incurred in the way of cost to prosecute D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc., to modify and expand an existing marina facility associated with an existing adjacent hotel, based on reasonable assurances from the applicant that the proposed project satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the review of environmental resource permit applications and for the regulation of water pollution in specified waters of the state. SBH is a Florida corporation and the general partner of Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Limited (Hotel Associates), the owner of the property in question. The complex at issue is composed of the Hyatt Hotel and certain submerged land underlying the proposed project. SBH is the authorized agency for Hotel Associates for the purpose of obtaining the permit in issue. Petitioners are associations of condominium owners whose properties lie adjacent and to the west of the site in question. The parties stipulated that all Petitioners had standing in this proceeding. The site at issue, owned by Hotel Associates, consists of a portion of the submerged bottoms within a sea- walled, rectangular-shaped, man-made basin which runs in a north-south direction west of U.S. Highway 41 in Sarasota. It is connected by a narrowed channel to Sarasota Bay at its southern end. Hotel Associates owns approximately the northern one-third of the basin, and Petitioners own approximately the western one-half of the southern two-thirds of the basin. Petitioners' property is not covered in the proposed permit. The remaining portion of the basin, comprised of the eastern one-half of the southern two-thirds, is owned by an entity which is not a party to this action, and that portion of the bottom also is not covered by the proposed permit. However, in order for boat traffic to reach the property in issue, the boats must traverse the southern two- thirds of the basin. Both Petitioners and the unconnected third owner maintain existing finger piers within their respective portions of the basin outside the portion in issue. The basin in which the marina in question is located is classified as a Class III water body and is connected to Sarasota Bay, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. Sarasota Bay is located approximately twelve hundred feet from the head of the basin and approximately eight hundred feet from the southern property line of the basin. As of the date of the hearing, the applicant, SBH, operated a permitted marina facility within the perimeter of the property in issue. This permit was issued years ago after the fact; that is, after the marina had already been constructed. As it currently exists, the marina is made up of perimeter docks which adjoin the northern and eastern sides of the basin and includes eight finger piers which provide ten to fifteen slips. In addition, a perimeter dock extends around an existing restaurant which sits on pilings over in the northeast end of the basin. Repairs and modifications were made to the facility under then-existing exemptions in 1995. These included the replacement of numerous copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA) treated pilings and the re-decking of existing walkways and finger piers with CCA-treated wood. At the present time, seven of the finger-pier slips are under lease to a commercial charter fleet, Chitwood Charters, and one slip located along the perimeter dock is leased to a dive boat operation, Scuba Quest. At least one other finger-pier slip has a boat docked at it for an extended period. This boat is owned by Charles Githler, president of SBH. The remaining finger-pier and perimeter slips are ordinarily used on a transient basis by guests of the Hyatt Hotel and the restaurant. The existing facility, including the finger piers slips and the perimeter slips, contains approximately 6,700 square feet of docking space and is designed to accommodate between twenty to thirty boats, depending upon the length of the boats. On occasion, however, as many as 40 to 60 boats have been docked at the facility. At times, when demand increases, the larger slips have been subdivided to allow up to four boats to be stern-moored per slip. Even more boats have been docked at the facility for boat shows by the use of stern mooring or "rafting," which calls for boats to be moored tied together, side by side, out from the docks. By application dated May 18, 1999, and received by the Department's Tampa District office on June 16, 1999, SBH sought to obtain from the Department a permit to modify and expand its existing marina facility. It proposed to expand the existing approximately 6,700 square feet of dock space to approximately 7,000 square feet, thereby creating a marina with 32 designated slips. Conditions to issuance of the permit, agreed to by the applicant, include a limitation on the number of boats which may be moored at the facility at any time and the addition of storm water treatment capability to the existing storm water drainage system. SBH also agreed to reduce the terminal end of the middle pier from 900 to 400 square feet. SBH also agreed to accept the imposition of several other permit conditions required by the Department, and to offset any impacts on wildlife and water quality as a result of the operation of the permitted facility. In addition to requiring that all long-term slip leases incorporate prohibitions against live-aboards and dockside boat maintenance, these conditions include the following: Overboard discharges of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel shall not occur at the docks. Sewage pump-out service shall be available at the marina facility. * * * 18. Fish cleaning stations, boat repair facilities and refueling facilities are not allowed. 20. There shall be no fueling or fueling facilities at the facility. * * * 28. The shoreline enhancement indicated on Attachment A shall be implemented within 30 days. * * * 30. The permittee shall perform water quality monitoring within the basin at the locations indicated on Attachment A semiannually (January and July of each year) for a period of 5 years. * * * All piles shall be constructed of concrete with exception of 18 mooring piles identified in permit submittals. This permit authorizes the mooring (temporarily or permanently) of a maximum of [32] watercraft at the subject facility. A harbormaster must be designated and maintained at the subject facility. In order to be in compliance with this permit, the ”OARS Ultra-Urban" hydrocarbon adsorbent insert, or Department approved equal, must be installed within the catch basin inlets as shown on the approved drawings. At a minimum, the hydrocarbon adsorbent material shall be replaced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. More frequent inspections and replacement of the filtration media may be required, depending on local conditions and results of the required water quality monitoring. * * * The permittee/grantee/lessee shall ensure that: In order to provide protection to manatees during the operation of this facility, permanent manatee information and/or awareness sign(s) will be installed and maintained to increase boater awareness of the presence of manatees, and of the need to minimize the threat of boats to these animals. SBH has also agreed to replace existing CCA-treated wood decking with concrete and fiberglass decking and to replace approximately 80 existing CCA-treated wood pilings with concrete pilings. Based on its analysis of the permit application and the supporting documentation submitted therewith, the Department, on March 2, 2000, entered a Notice of Intent to issue the permit for this project. Shortly thereafter, on March 25, 2000, after obtaining a minimal extension of time to file, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing opposing the issuance of the proposed permit. Departmental decisions on water quality permits such as that in issue here are dependent upon the applicant satisfying the Department's requirements in several identified areas. These include the impact of the project on water quality; impact of the project on the public health, safety, and welfare; impact of the project on the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species; impact of the project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion and shoaling; impact of the project on the immediate fishing, recreational values and marine productivity; impact of the project on archeological resources; impact of the project on the current condition and relative value of functions currently performed by areas to be affected; whether the project is permanent or temporary; and a balancing of the criteria, cumulative impacts, and secondary impacts. Addressing each of these in turn, it is clear that the current quality of the water within the existing marina is below established standards. Respondents admit that Petitioner has shown that the existing marina operation has diminished water quality conditions and created an environment that has potential adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife which frequent the basin as well as some of the neighboring property owners. This is not to say that these impacts were envisioned when the basin was constructed. However, other than as they relate to fish and wildlife and to water quality, the problems created by the marina do not relate to most permit criteria. The Respondent's experts calculate that due to its configuration and location, the basin naturally flushes approximately every 14.75 days. This is an inadequate time period to fully disperse any pollutants found in the basis. As a result of the inadequate flushing and the continuing use of the basin as a marina, there are resulting impacts to the water quality surrounding the existing facilities. Mr. Armstrong, Petitioner's water quality expert, indicated the project as proposed would lengthen even further the flushing time because of the addition of new boats and, to a lesser degree, the additional pilings and dock structure. These additions would, he contends, result in additional obstructions to water movement and cause a resultant increase in flushing time. While flushing is not a requirement of the permit, it has a bearing on water quality which is a consideration. Petitioners also argue that the mitigation measures proposed in the permit are inadequate and attack the qualifications of Mr. Cooper, the Department's storm water engineer. They point out alleged errors in Cooper's analysis and cite Mr. Armstrong, an individual with significant experience in water quality monitoring and analysis, to support their other witnesses' conclusions that more boats will increase the risk of hydrocarbon pollution from gasoline and diesel engines. Petitioners urge that the increased contamination, when coupled with the slow flushing action, would tend to settle down to where the pollutants enter the water - in the basin. Since it is clear these impacts would exist and continue even were the pending project not constructed, the issue, then, is whether the proposed project will worsen these environmental impacts. Respondents' authorities calculate they would not. In fact, it would appear the proposed changes called for in the permit, the removal of CCA-treated wood and its replacement with concrete piling and decking and the installation of storm water treatment apparatus, would reduce the adverse impacts to water quality within the basin and, in fact, improve it. It is so found. An issue is raised in the evidence as to the actual number of boats which can effectively use the marina at any one time. SBH contends the present configuration calls for between twenty to thirty boats. Evidence also shows that at times, during boat shows for example, many more boats are accommodated therein through "rafting." Even if the facility is expanded by the most significant number of slips, there is no concrete evidence there would be a significantly increased usage. The current usage is normally well below capacity. Modifications proposed under the pending permit could add as many as ten to fifteen additional slips. The Department has considered it significant that SBH has agreed to limit the number of boats that can be docked in this marina, even after modification. Unfortunately, no specific figure has been given for this limit, and, therefore, it cannot be shown exactly how much long-term water quality benefit can be expected. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw, as the Department has done, that if the number of boats is limited to a figure at or even slightly higher that that which is currently experienced, a long-term benefit can be expected with the implementation of the other mitigation conditions. This benefit currently cannot be quantified, however. What can be established, and all parties agree, is that the basin currently does not meet water quality standards for copper and dissolved oxygen. The proposed permit addresses the issue of dissolved oxygen by requiring SBH to follow best management practices in the operation of the marina; to treat storm water discharge which enters the marina; and to provide a sewage pump-out station at the marina which would prevent the discharge of sewage into the water. The issue of the water's copper level is addressed by the removal of the CCA-treated pilings and decking and their replacement with concrete and fiberglass; the treatment of the storm-water discharge before its discharge into the basin; and the hiring of a harbor master to ensure that the prohibition against hull scraping at the basin is complied with. A restriction on the number of boats allowed into the marina at any one time would also treat the copper problem by reducing the exposure to anti-fouling paint containing copper. This is a condition of the permit. It is important to note that under existing statutory and rule exemptions, SBH could repair or replace the existing dock structure without the need for a permit. However, the issuance of a permit which permits modification and a slight expansion of the facility will prohibit the replacement of the existing CCA-treated wood with CCA-treated wood. The concrete and fiberglass pilings and decking will not leach copper into the water and, in time, should result in a lower concentration of that substance in the water. Another consideration of the permitting authorities relates to the impact the project would have on public health, safety, and welfare. Petitioners expressed concern that an increase in the number of slips called for in the proposed project would cause an increase in the number of boats that utilize the basin. Currently, though there are a limited number of slips available, there is no limitation on the number of boats which may use the facility. A reasonable estimate of capacity, considering the configuration of the docks and slips and the permit limitations established, indicates that no more than thirty-two boats will be permitted to use the basin at any one time. If this limitation is followed, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the water quality. Petitioners also express concern that an increase in the number of authorized boats using the marina will result in an increase in the number of boats traveling at excessive speeds in entering and exiting. No evidence was introduced in support of this theory, but, in any case, Respondents counter- hypothesize that the increase in allowed boats will result in an increase in long term lessors over transients, and suggest that long term users are more considerate than transients. Neither side presented any substantial evidence in support of its positions. The impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife is a mandated consideration by the agency. No evidence was presented by either side regarding the existence of fish and wildlife in the area, much less threatened species, other than manatees. To be sure, these noble creatures inhabit the marina at times in appreciable numbers. The threat to them, however, comes from boat strikes, and no evidence was presented as to the number of strikes caused by boats in the marina or its approaches or the seriousness of these strikes. The agency to which the review of impacts to manatees was left, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) opined that the permit cap of 32 boats would keep to a minimum the potential impact to manatees from this project. Any increase in the number of boats, and the minimal impact increase thereby, should, it was considered, be offset by compliance with permit conditions. This opinion was contradicted by Mr. Thompson, Petitioner's manatee expert, who argued against any increase of boat traffic in manatee areas. This position is not the policy of the Department and is not controlling here. Further, it would appear this expert did not consider any mitigation factors proposed by SBH, as the Department is required to do. Taken together, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the expected impact of this project on fish and wildlife, including those threatened and endangered species, is minimal. Based on the evidence of record, it is found that the expected impact of this project on navigation, the flow of water, erosion, and shoaling in the vicinity is virtually non- existent. The only factor bearing on this issue is the number of boats which will use the facility and its approach. Permit conditions call for a limitation on the number of water craft which will use the facility to be permitted to a number lower than that which uses it, at times, under current conditions. The water is a dead-end harbor, with no through traffic. There is no evidence of either erosion or shoaling now. It would not likely increase. A reduction in traffic as would occur under the conditions imposed by the permit can do nothing but reduce the potential for propeller dredging by boat traffic and the water turbidity that would accompany such strikes. This would improve navigation slightly, and there should be no adverse impact to the flow of water. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish any negative impact on fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project, which is permanent in nature. By the same token, no adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources was shown by the evidence of record. The facility in issue is currently a commercial activity consisting of a docking facility and a restaurant. No evidence was introduced to show that the project proposed would have an adverse impact on the current condition and relative value of the current function. In fact, the evidence indicates that the facility would be improved. Though not raised by the evidence, it should be noted that Petitioners presented no evidence that their property values as adjacent property owners, would be adversely effected by this project. In balancing the criteria, cumulative impacts and secondary impacts of the proposed project on the immediate and surrounding area, it appears that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. The marina supports the hotel and restaurant which is on it. Adjoining property owners, the Petitioners, expressed concern that the modifications to the existing marina will result in a decrease in water quality in the basin; will increase the potential for fuel spills with their related short term discomforts and long term damages; and will increase the danger to the manatee population which periodically uses the basin. While they are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property, it is unreasonable for those who live on the water to expect that the benefits of living by the water would not carry with it the potential for some periodic discomfort created by waterfront activity. The weight of the evidence presented in this case indicates no significant cumulative adverse impacts from this project. To the contrary, the state of the evidence suggests an improvement in water quality and navigation in the basin and its approaches, and any secondary impacts resulting from the accomplishment of the project would be minimal.
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 issuing to Sarasota Bay Hotel the requested permit to modify and expand the existing marina facility located adjacent to the existing Hyatt Hotel at 1000 Boulevard of the Arts in Sarasota, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara B. Levin, Esquire Scott A. Haas, Esquire Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford & Gordon 240 South Pineapple Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236 Graig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark A. Hanson, Esquire Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A. 2033 Main Street Suite 403 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue to Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44000227.002 (the ERP), which would modify Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 (the Permit) and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481, issued by the District to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District issued Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park (MHP) located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Angler’s Green MHP Angler’s Green MHP is an 83-acre residential golf course development of approximately 385 homes located off of State Road 37 near Mulberry. Residents at Angler’s Green own their own mobile homes and lease the residential lots pursuant to annual leases expiring December 31 of each year, with guaranteed renewal conditioned upon owner compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease. Prior to being developed as a mobile home park, the property which is now Angler’s Green MHP was part of a phosphate mining operation and was reclaimed under a phosphate mining land reclamation plan approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and a reclamation contract dated September 4, 1984. Final contours of the Angler’s Green site were made in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. After reclamation contouring, a 23-acre manmade (former phosphate mine pit) lake remained in the northeast quadrant of the Angler's Green site. The resulting lake had a finger arm (bay or cove) extending from the southwest corner of the main body of the lake, oriented in a north-to-south direction and located west of a peninsula of land extending into the northwest part of the lake from the north. The lake also had a short, narrow canal leading into the main body of the lake from the south; the canal connected at a right angle to longer narrow waterway to the south of and extending parallel to the main body of the lake in an east-to-west orientation. There also were two smaller ponds on the property after reclamation contouring. After reclamation, surface water onsite generally flowed westerly and discharged from the property to a railroad ditch along the western boundary of the property. The recorded post-reclamation, pre-development water level for the 23-acre lake, as indicated on the site grading plans, was around 127.1 to 127.8 feet above Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.). The 1985 Permits On July 10, 1985, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century to authorize the construction of a surface water management system for Angler’s Green. The MSSW Permit had an expiration date of July 10, 1988. As designed, the permitted Angler’s Green surface water management system was to route internal stormwater runoff to swales, detention ponds, and catchment areas before discharging through a sidebank sand filtration system (a berm approximately 300 feet long containing an 8” perforated drain pipe covered by a filter fabric and sand filter material) to receiving waters at the northwest corner of the property. The permitted system was designed with five drainage areas known as Basins A through E. Basin A was in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin B was to its east in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin E was to the north of Basin A and included the 23-acre former phosphate mining pit reclaimed as an artificial lake, which was referred to as “Lake E” or sometimes “Pond E"; Basin C was to the west of Basin E; and Basin D was to the west of Basin C and to the north of Basin B. The two smaller ponds on the property were designated Pond C-1 and Pond B-1 and were located in Basin C and Basin B, respectively. Basin D was in the northwest corner of the site; the discharge structure was in the northwest corner of Basin D. As the system was designed, stormwater from Basin E would appear to sheet flow naturally into Lake E; stormwater from Basin A would appear to flow naturally to the southwest, away from Lake E, but the system routed the water from the southwest corner of Basin A to the western end of the waterway on Lake E through an underground pipe. Stormwater from Basin B was to flow to and be retained in Pond B-1; as the system was designed, surface water was not designed to discharge offsite from Basin B. As designed, Lake E served as a detention pond for water from Basin E and Basin A. It was to have a control structure (CS-1) in the arm of Lake E that would produce a seasonal fluctuation range of two feet, from 127.5’ above M.S.L. to 129.5’ above M.S.L. Stormwater discharging from CS- 1 was to be conveyed by pipe to Pond C-1, where it was to mingle with surface water draining from Basin C. When full, Pond C-1 would cascade into the golf course area in Basin D and, as necessary, in a portion of Basin B. After catchment and detention in the golf course area, overflow was eventually and ultimately to discharge offsite through the side-bank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. In this manner, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 25- year storm event, which was estimated to produce approximately 8 inches of water in a 24-hour period. It also was designed to comply with the water quality requirements as specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25 (1985 Ann. Supp.) by detaining the first half-inch of runoff before discharging it offsite through the sidebank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. (All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Omission of the Stangls During the review process, the District noted from drawings submitted as part of Century's MSSW Permit application that the project area did not include approximately the eastern third of the main body of Lake E. District staff brought this to Century's attention in a request for additional information (RAI) and stated: "If possible, you should obtain a perpetual right to operate and maintain the lake from other owners." In response, Century falsely represented to the District that L. Kirk McKay, a joint venture partner of Century, was the only riparian owner on Lake E and that Century had obtained from him a perpetual right to operate and maintain Lake E as part of the MSSW Permit. In fact, the Stangls owned property on the east side of the lake, including approximately 500 feet of lakefront and contiguous lake bottom. The Stangls and two partners purchased the property from McKay himself in 1979. The Stangls bought out their partners in 1984. The District relied on Century's misrepresentation. The District would not have issued the MSSW Permit to Century if the District had known that Century did not own or control all the land being used for the Permit--specifically, including all of Lake E. See Rule 40D-4.101(1)(d) and (2)(d)6. (1985) (application must include "evidence of ownership or control"). In addition, because the District was unaware of the Stangls' ownership of a portion of Lake E, the District did not require Century to give the Stangls direct, actual notice of the Century's permit application. Instead, the District only required that Century publish notice of the District’s receipt of the permit application. Notice was published on April 3, 1985, in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation qualified under the terms of Section 50.011, Florida Statutes. But the Stangls did not see the published notice, were unaware of the permit application, and did not ask to participate in the permitting process. The Stangl property adjacent to Angler’s Green remained undeveloped and unoccupied until 1999, when the Stangls' son, John, established a business on the site. Prior to 1999, the Stangls visited the property a couple times a year. They were fully aware of the construction and operation of Anglers Green as a mobile home park across Lake E. During this time, Century leased 385 lots with guaranteed annual renewal conditioned only upon compliance with lease terms and conditions. Amenities under the leases included clubhouse and golf course privileges. At no time before 2000 did the Stangls take any action to challenge the validity of Century's 1985 MSSW Permit. 1985 Surface Water Management Permitting Requirements In 1985, permitting requirements for surface water management systems were divided between two regulatory schemes. Surface water management permits in Polk County were issued by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, which addressed water quantity and flooding issues for projects greater than and less than 40 acres, respectively. Water quality permits or exemptions from water quality permitting requirements were issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 17-25 to address water quality concerns. It was not until 1988 that permitting requirements were consolidated into the MSSW regulatory program administered by the District under Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40. In 1985, the District did not have a Basis of Review (BOR) to specify system design requirements for applicants to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of surface water permits were satisfied. Standards and criteria for the design and performance of surface water management systems were contained in Rule 40D-4.301(2) (1985) Under subsection (2)(i) of that rule, projects designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25 [Regulation of Stormwater Discharge] were presumed to meet applicable State water quality requirements. There were no requirements for wet detention pond littoral zones. 20. Under Rule 17-25.03(2)(b) (1985 Ann. Supp.), stormwater management systems for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres that provided retention or detention with filtration of the first half-inch of runoff were exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule Chapter 17-25. 21. In 1985, District Rule 40D-4.301(2)(j) (1985) allowed for natural areas and existing water bodies to be used for stormwater retention or detention purposes when not in conflict with environmental or public use considerations. Areas that could be considered for this purpose included previously-degraded areas or man-made areas (such as borrow pits). Apparently, the District allowed Century to use Lake E as a detention pond under this provision. Deviations from MSSW Permit Angler’s Green MHP was constructed in two phases, with the first phase completed in 1985, and the second phase completed in 1987. Construction of at least the part of the surface water management system to serve the first phase took place prior to 1985; it was not clear from the evidence whether construction of the part of the surface water management system to serve the second phase also took place prior to 1985, but it clearly took place prior to construction of the second phase in 1987. Condition No. 4 of Century's MSSW Permit required the submittal of a certification that the system was constructed in accordance with the approved and permitted design. But Century did not provide any such certification. Century also never certified to the District that its new stormwater discharge facility, as constructed, continued to qualify for exemption from State water quality requirements. Although the surface water management system was constructed and operating, the District never transferred the 1985 Permit to the operation phase. In several respects, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was not constructed as designed, approved, and permitted in 1985. The pipe to convey stormwater from the southwest corner of Basin A back to the Lake E waterway apparently never was constructed; instead, stormwater from Basin A was routed to Pond B-1. (There also was a berm constructed in Basin A near the southern boundary of the site; but that berm apparently was a visual berm, and there was no evidence that it affected performance of the surface water management system.) Control structure CS-1 (which was supposed to be located in the arm or bay of Lake E) and the pipe to convey overflow from there into Pond C-1 also never were constructed. By the early 1990's, Angler's Green was experiencing flooding in the golf course area in Basin D and B for extended periods of time. In November 1993, the District responded to a complaint of flooding in that vicinity. Upon investigation, the District determined that malfunction of the surface water management system serving Reservation Lakes (now known as Paradise Lakes), a development to the north and downstream of the Angler's Green system, was causing water to back up through the wetlands and the sand filtration system in the northwest corner of the Angler’s Green project. As a result, water overtopped the discharge structure, equalized at levels above the top of the discharge structure's berm, and flooded the golf course for extended periods of time. At some undetermined point in time, an unpermitted pond was dug in Basin D, apparently in an attempt to alleviate flooding of the golf course. In addition, possibly for the same purpose, a pump was installed in Basin D near Pond C-1, and a pipe was installed to convey stormwater from there into Lake E. The sidebank sand filtration system designed to provide filtration of stormwater prior to discharge from the northwest corner of the site does not appear to exist today. It may be present but difficult to see after 15 years of plant growth; or it may have been removed or disturbed as a result of re-grading in the area. However, the evidence proved that the discharge structure was present in 1993, and there is no reason to believe that it was not installed during construction of the surface water management system--i.e., by 1987 at the latest. In addition, at some undetermined point in time, a pipe was installed at the northeast corner of Lake E to convey overflow from Lake E eastward to a drainage ditch located alongside SR 37 to the north of the Stangls' property. No witnesses could testify as to when the pipe to the SR 37 ditch was installed or its elevation. (The District and Century state in their PRO that Map No. 2 in P/I Exhibit 14--an aerial map/survey submitted to the District by Century on August 13, 1990, as part of Century's 1990 Water Use Permit No. 209993.000 application--notes the pipe's elevation as 127.95 feet above M.S.L.; but no such finding could be made from review of the exhibit.) Roads in Angler's Green have inverted crowns to convey runoff from roads, driveways, and roofs away from mobile home lots. Some runoff from these impervious surfaces appears to be directed into a swale on the east side of the site; this swale leads to Lake E. In addition, approximately 12 drains have been installed in or near roads in Angler's Green that convey water through pipes directly into Lake E or Pond C-1. Under current Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, road drains connecting impervious surfaces to Lake E would have to be shown on application construction drawings, and separate stormwater calculations would have to be provided in an application. But in 1985 this was not required. Century's calculations, together with flow arrows on drawings showing the direction of stormwater flow towards the detention ponds, were considered sufficient--especially since Century's calculations used a relatively high runoff co-efficient. As a result, the existence of these drains and pipes are not considered to be substantial deviations from the original, approved design. Similarly, approximately 64 roof drains and pipes conveying water from roofs directly into Lake E and Pond C-1 would not be considered substantial deviations from the original, approved design. In addition, these apparently were installed by mobile homeowners over the years, not by Century. From 1985 to 2000, the District did not have occasion to address regulatory concerns at Angler’s Green, except for the complaint of flooding in the golf course area that occurred in November 1993 and a more recent complaint about an area of the golf course that was designed to flood under certain conditions. Otto Stangl’s Complaint and the District’s Response Around November 1999, John Stangl noticed a fish kill in the ditch along SR 37 near the Stangl property. He also was contacted by a governmental compliance officer concerning the fish kill. Upon investigating, John Stangl saw the unpermitted pipe leading from Lake E that was discharging into the SR 37 ditch where the fish kill was observed, as well as the unpermitted pump that was pumping water from the Angler’s Green golf course area through a pipe that discharged into Lake E. In February 2000, Otto Stangl complained to the District about the fish kill and the existence of the unpermitted structures associated with Lake E. Upon receiving Otto Stangl’s complaint, District staff conducted site visits of the Angler’s Green project. Staff observed the unauthorized pump and pipe conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E and the unauthorized pipe conveying water from Lake E to the SR 37 ditch. Staff also observed that the Lake E control structure was missing, the pipe to convey stormwater from Basin A to Lake E was missing, and Basin D had been re-graded. In February 2000, the District also became aware of the fact that Century did not have full ownership or control of Lake E. On March 15, 2000, the District issued Century Notice of Non-Compliance and directed Century to either construct the system as designed and permitted or to seek a permit modification. On May 8, 2000, Century submitted a letter application to modify the original MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 by constructing the originally permitted Lake E control structure and pipe conveying water from Lake E to Pond C-1, but in a different location in Lake E than originally permitted due to the existence of homes at the location where these structures were originally planned. The application was subsequently amended to be a formal modification upon Century’s request for further modification to allow Basin A stormwater to flow to Pond B-1 and to expand Pond B-1 and add a control structure and an effluent filtration system. Despite having actual knowledge since at least February 2000 that the Angler's Green surface water management system was built partially on their property, the Stangls did not ask for a hearing on the 1985 Permit. Instead, they awaited the District's consideration of Century's modification application and sought to challenge the District's notice of intent to grant the modification permit issued on October 29, 2001. The District’s Regulatory Compliance Practices In the 1980's, the District appeared to pay little or no attention to construction of permitted projects or submission of required post-construction certifications. Many projects permitted by the District in the 1980’s, such as Angler’s Green, were built and operating although no certifications had been submitted; as a result, the permits issued for these projects never were transferred to the operation phase. Eventually, some projects not built in compliance with issued permits came to the attention of the District, typically through third-party complaints about drainage problems and flooding. By this time, there was a large backlog of issued construction permits for which no required post-construction certifications had been submitted. The backlog of these older projects was so large that the District decided not to initiate an aggressive, systematic, and comprehensive review of all permits for which no required certifications had been submitted. Instead, projects were checked on an ad hoc basis as complaints regarding the functioning of their surface water management systems were registered. When it came to the attention of the District in this manner that a project had been built under an MSSW permit but that no required certifications had been submitted, the District first attempted to secure the required certifications in the form of certified as-built construction drawings and a Statement of Completion, as required by BOR 2.7. In so doing, it was common practice for the District to accept certifications beyond the expiration date on a permit. If projects were substantially completed, the District would not deem the permit as expired simply because the required certifications had not been submitted before the expiration date; and such projects did not lose their status as being permitted. It should be noted that, according to the testimony of the District's expert, William Hartmann, this agency practice was not based on an interpretation of Rule 40D- 4.321(1)(b) (1985) (on duration of construction permits). Rather, the agency practice was to ignore the expiration of the construction permit under those circumstances. In addition, it does not appear from the evidence that the District ever before has faced the situation presented in this case--where a person on whose property part of a surface water management system was built without the person's consent opposes modification and asserts the construction permit has expired. In cases where the agency's practice was applied, if the required certified as-built construction drawings and Statement of Completion could not be provided because the project was not built in accordance with the MSSW permit, the District would require the permittee to either bring the system into compliance with the approved permit designs or obtain a modification of the construction permit. Letter modifications would be accepted when the requested modification would not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase the authorized offsite discharge, impact the environmental features of the project, decrease the required retention/detention, decrease the required flood control elevations for roads or buildings, or decrease pollution removal efficiency. See Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b) (1985). (The current version of the rule adds renewal or extension of the existing permit duration.) Alterations meeting the threshold requirements for a letter modification would be presumed to meet the conditions for issuance for a permit. Otherwise, formal permit modifications would be required. When application is made for a permit modification, the District’s practice is to evaluate those aspects of the surface water management system being modified. Review generally would not extend to the entire system. Permittees seeking to modify their surface water management systems generally are not required by the District to bring the unmodified portions of the system into compliance with current design criteria. Proposed ERP Permit Modification ERP Application No. 44000227.002 seeks authorization to modify portions of the Angler’s Green surface water management system. The specific alterations for which approval is sought are: permanent removal of the existing, unpermitted 18-inch pipe between Lake E and SR 37 roadside ditch; permanent removal of the pump and associated piping conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E; installation of the control structure (CS-1), together with installation of pipe to convey water from the control structure to Pond C-1, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but different location in the northwest corner of the main body of Lake E; re-grading of the northwesterly portion of the golf course to more closely conform to the original permitted plan and help keep Basin B separate from Basin D; reconstruction of the side-bank sand filter system in the northwest corner of the property, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but with a slightly higher invert elevation (122.04 feet above M.S.L.) to prevent water from backing up into Angler's Green from Paradise Lakes again, and with a concrete flume and spreader swale between Pond C-1 and the berm of the side-bank sand filter system; enlargement of Pond B-1; installation of a control structure on Pond B-1; and installation of 100 feet of 6-inch side-bank sand filter discharging to the southwest corner of the property from Pond B-1. By removing the unpermitted pipe to the roadside ditch along SR 37 and by constructing control structure CS-1, with the same control elevations as in the 1985 Permit (albeit at a different location in Lake E), and connecting CS-1 by pipe to Pond C-1 as envisioned in the 1985 Permit, the function of Lake E should approximate its function under the design approved in 1985. Modifying the permitted design to authorize Basin A to flow to Pond B-1 instead of Lake E results in less water flowing to Lake E; these changes will not increase water quantity or quality impacts to Lake E, as compared to the 1985 Permit. As compared to reclamation conditions prior to implementation of the 1985 Permit, water quantity and quality impacts to Lake E would be expected both under the system as designed and permitted in 1985 and as proposed to be modified, by virtue of the similar use of Lake E as a detention pond under either system. Pond B-1 is being enlarged to better accommodate the flow from Basin A. The control structure being added at Pond B-1 will control flow into the swale to the west so as to address water quantity impacts in that area. Stormwater calculations for the revised Pond B-1 demonstrated that the post-development discharge rate will not exceed the pre- development discharge rate, so that there are no concerns for adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands or flooding impacts to on-site or off-site property. The historical flows to the west are still maintained. The discharge structure being added at Pond B-1 will account for treatment of the Basin A flow. Based on calculations for revised Pond B-1, the enlarged pond will retain and percolate half an inch of stormwater runoff from the contributing area in 36 hours (which is consistent with current BOR design requirements). The proposed Pond B-1/Basin B modifications, including the routing of Basin A stormwater to Pond B-1, will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters in that vicinity such that state water quality standards would be violated. Angler's Green is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area of Polk County. No surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established for this area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The proposed modifications do not involve any works of the District. The proposed modifications are based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and employ treatment methods of effluent filtration which involve commonly accepted designs that can be effectively performed and function as proposed. There are no concerns about Century’s financial, legal, or administrative capability to undertake the proposed modifications as specified in the permit, if issued. There are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established for this area. Environmental Concerns As with its review of the proposed permit modification for water quantity impacts, the District's review of environmental concerns was limited to review of impacts from the proposed modifications to the original permitted design; unmodified portions of the original permit were not reviewed for compliance with current requirements. An approximately 20 square-foot permanent impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of the control structure (SW-1) in the water. A 379 square-foot temporary impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of a cofferdam to facilitate construction of the control structure. Temporary impacts to Lake E resulting from the construction of the control structure would be addressed through the use of sediment and erosion controls to prevent possible sedimentation and turbidity that may arise during the construction activity. The placement of a control structure in Lake E would create very minor permanent impacts resulting from the loss of the footprint of the control structure. These impacts would be insignificant. Due to the very minor nature of these proposed impacts, no mitigation would be required, and no loss of wetlands would be required to be recorded on the Wetlands/Surface Water Table. Construction of SW-1 would not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. No secondary impacts would be expected from construction of SW-1. No unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters would be expected to occur as a result of construction of SW-1. The project area includes .71 acre of herbaceous/forested wetlands (WL-1) in the northwest corner. The potential for secondary impacts is addressed by an existing fence surrounding WL-1, which eliminates concerns for secondary impacts to this wetland area. No adverse impacts would be anticipated to occur to these wetlands, and no adverse secondary impacts to the water resources would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed modifications themselves. The proposed modifications would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Class II or Class III waters would not be affected by the proposed modification project. Therefore, Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(c) is not applicable. No seawalls, lagoons or estuaries are involved in this project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(d) is not applicable. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest. Relocation of a control structure and enhancement of the Basin B portion of the system would create no significant change in impacts. The proposed modifications constitute a slight improvement over water quality from the original permitted design. No threatened or endangered species were identified for Angler’s Green. The proposed relocation and construction of the Lake E control structure, preservation of onsite wetlands in the northwest corner, and re-design of Pond B-1 present no environmental concerns. Consequently, the proposed modifications do not create any potential for adverse effects regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The proposed modifications do not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The project area does not involve navigable waters and does not affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Hence, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(3) does not apply to this permit modification application. There are no significant historical and archaeological resources involved in this Project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(6) is not applicable to this permit modification application. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest; they would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications maintain the historic water elevation for Lake E and maintain historic flows for the project area. The modified system should also provide some improvement in water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Century's permit modification application designated ERP No. 44000227.002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Magri, Esquire Merkle & Magri, P.A. 5510 West LaSalle Street Tampa, Florida 33607-1713 Joseph P. Mawhinney, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
Findings Of Fact On October 19, 1983 the City of Jacksonville, Florida made application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation for permission to replace an existing stormwater outfall structure discharging into the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The St. Johns River is a Class III waterbody within the meaning of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. By this project the applicant would remove an existing 27 inch RCP outfall pipe and headwall and install a new 48 inch RCP outfall pipe with headwall. The project also envisions the construction of a 16 by 20 foot erosion protection mat. The system envisioned is a stepdown system as it approaches the St. Johns River. Approximately 117 cubic yards of material would be dredged, 38 cubic yards of which would be taken from an area below the mean highwater line. In association with the project 10 cubic yards of fill would be deposited landward of the mean highwater line. The purpose of this project is to provide more effective drainage of an existing residential development constituted of approximately 150-200 homes. This request was made in furtherance of a court mandate to improve the stormwater drainage within this residential area of the community. In the vicinity of the proposed project, the home sites have lawn grass and ornamental shrubbery and the upland vegetation is otherwise' dominated with hickory, pines and oaks with scattered hickory and magnolia. At the project site the river bank is approximately 15 feet high and terraced. Elephant ear dominates the shoreline vegetation along with some bald cypress and red maple. Eelgrass is common to the area but was not found at the exact location of the project site. The sediments in the area are predominantly sand with some silt and detritus. The site selected for this project was chosen after looking at a number of alternatives and presents the better choice of alternatives reviewed. With the advent of the change approximately five (5) times the amount of volume of water will be discharged as contrasted with the present discharge point. No significant increase in velocity is expected in the discharge system. Consequently increased erosion is not expected to occur, in that velocity not volume promotes erosion. Steps will be taken to insure against erosion of property adjacent to the outfall site to include protection of the bulkhead related to Petitioner Coltrane's property which is adjacent to the project site. Inspection of this site by permit assessment officials within the Department of Environmental Regulation established that minimal environmental harm or impact is expected if the project is permitted. The project would eliminate a small amount of river bottom and the associated biota and its available pollution filtering capacity and wildlife habitat. That loss is not significant on the subject of biological resources or water quality of the St. Johns River. The effects of turbidity will be adequately addressed from the point of view of the experts of the Department, whose opinions are accepted. The erosion is addressed by mats which constitute control structures. The area of land which is constituted of the property of the State of Florida at the site is approximately 20 by 15 feet. Although a certain amount of sedimentation will occur, that sedimentation is not significant and will tend to settle on the protection mats. No particular examination was made of the water quality of the stormwater being discharged through the pipe. 1/ The question of water quality was limited to an examination of the receiving waters in the St. Johns River. The volume and velocity of the stormwater being discharged was considered by the department and was not found to be a significant problem. As stated before this opinion on volume and velocity is accepted. 2/ This project will not interfere with conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or the natural, resources in a way that is contrary to the public interest, and will not result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity, to include but not be limited to, destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, nor interfere with the established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding ground for marine life. The project will not interfere with natural shoreline processes to such as to be contrary to the public interest. The project is not expected to create a navigational hazard or serious impediments in navigation or to substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters, such to be contrary to the public interest. Turbidity controls are contemplated to prohibit a turbidity problem exceeding 29 NTU's above background. The Petitioners Coltrane and Khosravi challenged the grant of the dredge and fill permit. Coltrane is concerned about problems of erosion, that the project will be unsightly in its appearance and that it will tend to disturb the river bottom while the construction is occurring. Khosravi speaks in terms of damage to the natural condition and ecological factors of the surrounding area on the banks of the St. Johns River. Both of these petitioners live adjacent to the project site on home sites by the St. Johns River. As described above, the concerns of the petitioners have been adequately addressed in the project design. Coltrane's testimony and depiction of the circumstance in another outfall of the City of Jacksonville in the vicinity of the project site, where adverse impact is shown, was not demonstrated to be sufficiently similar to the present project to cause alarm. See Coltrane's composite Exhibit No. 1 as admitted into evidence, photographs of that site. The City of Jacksonville has been granted an easement by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for the use of the state owned submerged land.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether International Paper Company (IP) is entitled to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL0002526 issued by Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and whether the Department should approve Consent Order No. 08-0358, for the operation of IP’s paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2008), to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. At the north end of Perdido Bay is a large tract of land owned by IP, known as the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily fresh water wetlands. The southern part is a tidally-affected marsh. The natural features and hydrology of the fresh water wetlands have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing, ditching, and draining. Tee Lake and Wicker Lake are small lakes (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) within the tidal marsh of the Rainwater Tract. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to the lakes from Perdido Bay. Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. In 1989, the Department and Champion signed a Consent Order to address water quality violations in Elevenmile Creek. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Champion commissioned a comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system that was undertaken by a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies (“the Livingston studies"). Champion was granted variances from the water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO). In 2001, IP and Champion merged and Champion’s industrial wastewater permit and related authorizations were transferred to IP. In 2002, IP submitted a permit application to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to the Rainwater Tract, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a reduction of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP, along with other process wastewater and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. The effluent limits required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based, limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged for each ton of product that is produced. The proposed permit also imposes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. The Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. A wetland pilot project was constructed in 1990 at the Cantonment mill into which effluent from the mill has been discharged. The flora and fauna of the pilot wetland project have been monitored to evaluate how they are affected by IP’s effluent. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silvicultural activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, it would be re-aerated and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged into the wetland would flow a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a somewhat shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter indicated that the effluent would move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be 0.6 inches. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline, berm, and control structures in the wetland tract, as originally proposed, were permitted by the Department through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. Petitioners did not challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given two years to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At the end of the construction phase, least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to be increased another 25 percent every three months thereafter. Three years after issuance of the permit, 100 percent of the effluent would be discharged into the wetland tract and there would no longer be a discharge into Elevenmile Creek. The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limits that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the two-year construction phase when the mill would continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12- month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply when 100 percent of the effluent is discharged into the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. Project Changes After the issuance of the Final Order in 05-1609, IP modified its manufacturing process to eliminate the production of white paper. IP now produces brown paper for packaging material and “fluff” pulp used in such products as filters and diapers. IP’s new manufacturing processes uses substantially smaller amounts of bleach and other chemicals that must be treated and discharged. IP reduced its discharge of BOD components, salts that increase the specific conductance of the effluent, adsorbable organic halides, and ammonia. IP also reduced the odor associated with its discharge. In the findings that follow, the portion of the Rainwater Tract into which IP proposes to discharge and distribute its effluent will be referred to as the “effluent distribution system,” which is the term used by Dr. Nutter in his 2008 “White Paper” (IP Exhibit 23). The effluent distribution system includes the berms and other water control structures as well as all of the natural areas over which IP’s effluent will flow to Perdido Bay. Most of the existing ditches, sloughs, and depressions in the effluent distribution system are ephemeral, holding water only after heavy rainfall or during the wet season. Even the more frequently wetted features, other than Tee and Wicker Lakes, intermittently dry out. There is currently little connectivity among the small water bodies that would allow fish and other organisms to move across the site. Fish and other organisms within these water bodies are exposed to wide fluctuations in specific conductivity, pH, and DO. When the water bodies dry out, the minnows and other small fish die. New populations of fish enter these water bodies from Elevenmile Creek during high water conditions, or on the feet of water birds. IP's consultants conducted an extensive investigation and evaluation of animal and plant communities in the Rainwater Tract in coordination with scientists from the Department and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among the habitats that were identified and mapped were some wet prairies, which are designated “S-2," or imperiled, in the Florida Natural Area Inventory. In these wet prairies are rare and endangered pitcher plants. IP modified the design of the proposed effluent distribution system to shorten the upper berms and remove 72.3 acres of S-2 habitat. The total area of the system was reduced from 1,484 acres to 1,381 acres. The proposed land management activities within the effluent distribution system are intended to achieve restoration of historic ecosystems, including the establishment and maintenance of tree species appropriate to the various water depths in the system, and the removal of exotic and invasive plant species. A functional assessment of the existing and projected habitats in the effluent distribution system was performed. The Department concluded that IP’s project would result in a six percent increase in overall wetland functional value within the system. That estimate accounts for the loss of some S-2 habitat, but does not include the benefits associated with IP’s conservation of S-2 habitat and other land forms outside of the effluent distribution system. IP proposes to place in protected conservation status 147 acres of wet prairie, 115 acres of seepage slope, and 72 acres of sand hill lands outside the effluent distribution system. The total area outside of the wetland distribution system that the Consent Order requires IP to perpetually protect and manage as conservation area is 1,188 acres. The Consent Order was modified to incorporate many of the wetland monitoring provisions that had previously been a part of the former experimental use of wetlands authorization. IP proposes to achieve compliance with all proposed water quality standards and permit limits by the end of the schedule established in the Consent Order, including the water quality standards for specific conductance, pH, turbidity, and DO, which IP had previously sought exceptions for pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). Limitation of Factual Issues As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the parties in these consolidated cases from re-litigating factual issues that were previously litigated by them in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. The Department’s Final Order of August 8, 2007, determined that IP had provided reasonable assurance that the NPDES permit, Consent Order, exception for the experimental use of wetlands, and variance were in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, except for the following area: the evidence presented by IP was insufficient to demonstrate that IP’s wastewater effluent would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. Following a number of motions and extensive argument on the subject of what factual issues raised by Petitioners are proper for litigation in this new proceeding, an Order was issued on June 2, 2009, that limited the case to two general factual issues: Whether the revised Consent Order and proposed permit are valid with respect to the effects of the proposed discharge on the wetland system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and with respect to any modifications to the effluent distribution and treatment functions of the wetland system following the Final Order issued in DOAH Case No. 05- 1609; and Whether the December 2007 report of the Livingston team demonstrates that the WQBELS are inadequate to prevent water quality violations in Perdido Bay. Petitioners’ Disputes Petitioners’ proposed recommended orders include arguments that are barred by collateral estoppel. For example, Jacqueline Lane restates her opinions about physical and chemical processes that would occur if IP’s effluent is discharged into the wetlands, despite the fact that some of these opinions were rejected in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. Dr. Lane believes that IP’s effluent would cause adverse impacts from high water temperatures resulting from color in IP’s effluent. There is already color in the waters of the effluent distribution system under background conditions. The increased amount of shading from the trees that IP is planting in the effluent distribution system would tend to lower water temperatures. Peak summer water temperatures would probably be lowered by the effluent. Petitioners evidence was insufficient to show that the organisms that comprise the biological community of the effluent distribution system cannot tolerate the expected range of temperatures. Dr. Lane also contends that the BOD in IP's effluent would deplete DO in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes. Her contention, however, is not based on new data about the effluent or changes in the design of the effluent distribution system. There is a natural, wide fluctuation in DO in the wetlands of the effluent distribution system because DO is affected by numerous factors, including temperature, salinity, atmospheric pressure, turbulence, and surface water aeration. There are seasonal changes in DO levels, with higher levels in colder temperatures. There is also a daily cycle of DO, with higher levels occurring during the day and lower levels at night. It is typical for DO levels in wetlands to fall below the Class III water quality standard for DO, which is five milligrams per liter (mg/l). An anaerobic zone in the water column is beneficial for wetland functions. DO levels in the water bodies of the effluent distribution system currently range from a high of 11 to 12 mg/l to a low approaching zero. The principal factor that determines DO concentrations within a wetland is sediment oxygen demand (SOD). SOD refers to the depletion of oxygen from biological responses (respiration) as well as oxidation-reduction reactions within the sediment. The naturally occurring BOD in a wetland is large because of the amount of organic material. The BOD associated with IP’s effluent would be a tiny fraction of the naturally occurring BOD in the effluent distribution system and would be masked by the effect of the SOD. It was estimated that the BOD associated with IP's effluent would represent only about .00000000001 percent of the background BOD, and would have an immeasurable effect. Dr. Pruitt’s testimony about oxygen dynamics in a wetland showed that IP’s effluent should not cause a measurable decrease in DO levels within the effluent distribution system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. FOPB and James Lane assert that only 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be inundated by IP’s effluent, so that the alleged assimilation or buffering of the chemical constituents of the effluent would not occur. That assertion misconstrues the record evidence. About 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be permanently inundated behind the four berms. However, IP proposes to use the entire 1,381-acre system for effluent distribution. The modifications to the berms and the 72-acre reduction in the size of the effluent distribution system would not have a material effect on the assimilative capacity of system. The residence time and travel time of the effluent in the system, for example, would not be materially affected. Variability in topography within the effluent distribution system and in rainfall would affect water depths in the system. The variability in topography, including the creation of some deeper pools, would contribute to plant and animal diversity and overall biological productivity within the system. The pH of the effluent is not expected to change the pH in the effluent distribution system because of natural buffering in the soils. The specific conductance (saltiness) of IP’s effluent is not high enough to adversely affect the biological community in the fresh water wetlands of the effluent distribution system. IP is already close to maintaining compliance with the water quality standard for specific conductance and would be in full compliance by the end of the compliance schedule established in the proposed Consent Order. After the 2007 conversion to brown paper manufacturing, IP’s effluent has shown no toxicity. The effluent has passed the chronic toxicity test, which analyzes the potential for toxicity from the whole effluent, including any toxicity arising from additive or synergistic effects, on sensitive test organisms. Dr. Lane points out that the limits for BOD and TSS in the proposed NPDES permit exceed the limits established by Department rule for discharges of municipal wastewater into wetlands. However, paper mill BOD is more recalcitrant in the environment than municipal wastewater BOD and less “bio- available” in the processes that can lower DO. In addition, the regulatory limits for municipal wastewater are technology-based, representing “secondary treatment.” The secondary treatment technology is not applicable to IP’s wastewater. Sampling in the pilot wetland at the paper mill revealed a diversity of macroinvertebrates, including predator species, and other aquatic organisms. Macroinvertebrates are a good measure of the health of a water body because of their fundamental role in the food web and because they are generally sensitive to pollutants. Petitioners contend that the pilot wetland at the paper mill is not a good model for the effect of the IP’s effluent in the wetland distribution system, primarily because of the small amount of effluent that has been applied to the pilot wetland. Although the utility of the pilot wetland data is diminished in this respect, it is not eliminated. The health of the biological community in the pilot wetland contributes to IP’s demonstration of reasonable assurance that the biological community in the effluent distribution system would not be adversely affected. The effluent would not have a significant effect on the salinity of Tee and Wicker Lakes. Under current conditions, the lakes have a salinity of less than one part per thousand 25 percent of the time, less than 10 parts per thousand 53 percent of the time, and greater than 10 parts per thousand 22 percent of the time. In comparison, marine waters have a salinity of 2.7 parts per thousand. IP’s effluent would not affect the lower end of the salinity range for Tee and Wicker Lakes, and would cause only a minor decrease in the higher range. That minor decrease should not adversely affect the biota in Tee and Wicker Lakes or interfere with their nursery functions. The proposed hydrologic loading rate of the effluent amounts to an average of six-tenths of an inch over the area of effluent distribution system. The addition of IP’s effluent to the wetlands of the effluent distribution system and the creation of permanent pools would allow for permanent fish populations and would increase the opportunity for fish and other organisms to move across the effluent distribution system. Biological diversity and productivity is likely to be increased in the effluent distribution system. By improving fish habitat, the site would attract wading birds and other predatory birds. Although the site would not be open to public use (with the exception of Tee and Wicker Lakes), recreational opportunities could be provided by special permission for guided tours, educational programs, and university research. Even if public access were confined to Tee and Wicker Lakes, that would not be a reduction in public use as compared to the existing situation. IP’s discharge, including its discharges subject to the interim limits established in the Consent Order, would not interfere with the designated uses of the Class III receiving waters, which are the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The wetlands of the effluent distribution system are the “receiving waters” for IP’s discharge. The proposed project would not be unreasonably destructive to the receiving waters, which would involve a substantial alteration in community structure and function, including the loss of sensitive taxa and their replacement with pollution-tolerant taxa. The proposed WQBELs would maintain the productivity in Tee and Wicker Lakes. There would be no loss of the habitat values or nursery functions of the lakes which are important to recreational and commercial fish species. IP has no reasonable, alternative means of disposing of its wastewater other than by discharging it into waters of the state. IP has demonstrated a need to meet interim limits for a period of time necessary to complete the construction of its alternative waste disposal system. The interim limits and schedule for coming into full compliance with all water quality standards, established in the proposed Consent Order, are reasonable. The proposed project is important and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare because (1) economic benefits would accrue to the local and regional economy from the operation of IP’s paper mill, (2) Elevenmile Creek would be set on a course of recovery, (3) the wetlands of the effluent distribution system would become a site of greater biological diversity and productivity, (4) the environmental health of Perdido Bay would be improved, (5) the Department’s decades-long enforcement action against IP would be concluded, (6) substantial areas of important habitat would be set aside for permanent protection, and (7) the effluent distribution system would yield important information on a multitude of scientific topics that were debated by these parties. The proposed project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats. The proposed project would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. There is no Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan applicable to IP’s proposed discharge. The preponderance of the record evidence establishes reasonable assurance that IP’s proposed project would comply with all applicable laws and that the Consent Order establishes reasonable terms and conditions to resolve the Department’s enforcement action against IP for past violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting NPDES Permit No. FL0002526 and approving Consent Order No. 08-0358. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 27th day of January, 2010.
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
