Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed June 22, 1994, Petitioner requested a permit to dredge about 500 square feet of uplands for a boatslip and to maintenance dredge 1700-1900 square feet in an adjacent canal, removing 125 cubic yards of material waterward of mean high water. The Application describes the work as including a vertical concrete seawall running 92 feet inside the boatslip, a cat walk from the boatslip to the canal, and a roof over the boatslip. A drawing attached to the Application depicts the proposed boatslip at the east end of the Petitioner's lot and with rounded corners to facilitate flushing. By Notice of Permit Denial executed October 24, 1994, Respondent advised that the permit was denied. The Notice states that water quality in the surrounding canal system is generally poor with low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The shoreline vegetation is primarily mangroves, which are tall but not robust. The proposed dredge area consists of a healthy littoral shelf with live oysters and shells. Based on the foregoing site description, the Notice denies the permit because of impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife and marine productivity and a degradation of the current condition and relative value of the affected area. The Notice relates all of these factors to the loss of the mangroves and dredging of the adjacent canal bottom. The Notice adds that the project would have an adverse cumulative impact on water quality and public resources if similar projects were constructed. In the alternative, the Notice suggests that Petitioner eliminate the dredging into the uplands and canal and instead construct a boat shelter in the canal in an area of existing adequate water depth. By letter dated November 7, 1994, Petitioner challenged the denial. The letter states that Petitioner has maintained an environmentally productive shoreline consisting of mangroves, oysters, and rip rap, rather than concrete seawalls, as are found along the shoreline of most of his neighbors. The letter suggests that, if Petitioner followed Respondent's suggestion and built a slip in the canal, Petitioner would be permitted to do maintenance dredging in the artificial canal. The letter concludes that the maintenance dredging and shading of an over- the-water boathouse would have more impact on the environment than dredging uplands and a small access channel to the slip. Petitioner's residence is located in Aqualane Shores, which is an established residential subdivision located between Naples Bay on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Petitioner's lot is located about two-thirds of the distance down a long, relatively wide artificial canal known as Jamaica Channel. Jamaica Channel intersects Naples Bay to the east of Petitioner's property. Jamaica Channel is a Class III waterbody. Petitioner owns about 200 feet of shoreline at the corner of Jamaica Channel and a shorter, narrower canal. The entire area is heavily canalized and completely built-out with nearly exclusively single family residences. Most of the shoreline in the area is bulkheaded with concrete seawalls. Jamaica Channel was dredged in the early 1950s. Early riprap revetment crumbled into the water and in some areas became colonized by oysters, which supply food and filter impurities from water. Shoreline owners weary of repairing riprap installed vertical seawalls, thereby destroying the oyster beds and intertidal habitat. But much of the riprap adjacent to unbulkheaded shoreline eventually was stabilized by mangrove roots. The absence of concrete seawalls along Petitioner's shoreline has permitted a significant colony of oysters to populate the 25-foot littoral shelf running along Petitioner's shoreline. The oysters form a hemisphere, thickest at the middle of Petitioner's shoreline and narrowest at the east and west edges, narrowing to a width of as little as 6-10 feet. In recent years, Australian pines were removed from Petitioner's shoreline. As a result, mangrove seedlings have successfully occupied much of the shoreline. The proposed boatslip would be located at the east end of the shoreline where there is a natural gap in the mangroves. As a result, only three mangroves would have to be removed, and a relatively narrow band of oysters would be dredged and, as offered by Petitioner, relocated. The proposed dredging involves uplands and submerged bottom. As to the uplands, Petitioner intends to create a slope in the slip with the rear one to one and one-half feet shallower than the front, although this slope is not reflected on the Application. The purpose of the slope is to facilitate flushing. Petitioner evidently intends to dredge sufficient material to fill the rear of the slip with two feet of water at mean water and the front of the slip with three feet of water at mean water. The dredging in Jamaica Channel would involve an 18-20 foot wide path leading to the slip. Beyond the oysters, the bottom is fine sandy substrate with scattered rock. The relocation of oyster-covered rocks might be successful, if there are sufficient areas suitable for colonization that have not already been colonized. However, the dredged areas would not be recolonized due to their depths. Presently, the Application discloses level dredging down to an elevation of -5 NGVD. Petitioner's intent to slope the boatslip has been discussed above. Although Petitioner did not reveal a similar intent to slope the area dredged in Jamaica Channel, Petitioner's witness, Naples' Natural Resource Manager, testified that he would insist on similar sloping the entire length of the dredged area, so that the deepest area would be most waterward of the boatslip. If the dredged canal bottom were not sloped, Petitioner proposes removing about 4.25 feet of material about ten feet from shore, about 3.4 feet of material about 22 feet from shore, about 1.8 feet of material about 30 feet from shore, and about 0.5 feet of material about 40 feet from shore. Petitioner did reveal that the cross-section indicating a dredged depth of -5 feet applies only to the centerline of the dredge site, which would be tapered off to the east and west. The slope of the taper was not disclosed, but it is evident that the affected areas within 20 feet of the shoreline would be dredged at least two feet deeper and, in most areas, three feet deeper. The deepening of Jamaica Canal in the vicinity of the shoreline would not only eliminate existing oyster habitat, but would also eliminate habitat currently used by small fish. The deepening of Jamaica Channel in the vicinity of the shoreline would also impact water quality in the area. Water quality in Naples Bay and Jamaica Channel is poor and violates water quality standards for DO. Due to poor mixing of freshwater infusions and saltwater, DO levels deteriorate with depth. Where DO levels are probably adequate in the shallows around Petitioner's shoreline, the proposed dredging would likely result in depths at which violations could be expected to occur. Petitioner offers to install an aerator to introduce oxygen into the water. Ignoring the fact that the aerator was to operate only in the boatslip and not in the remainder of the dredged area, Petitioner did not show the effect on DO levels of this proposal. Even if the aerator had been shown to result in a net improvement in area DO levels, Petitioner also failed to show how the operation of the aerator would be guaranteed to extend indefinitely, or at least until the dredged areas were permitted to regain their pre-dredged depths. Petitioner argues that he could construct an over-the- water boathouse and maintenance dredge, and the resulting environmental impact would be greater. Several factors militate against this proposed alternative and thus preclude consideration of this alternative against the proposed project. Most significantly, the oysters have occupied the littoral shelf adjacent to Petitioner's shoreline for a period in excess of 20 years. There is considerable doubt as to whether Petitioner would be permitted to maintenance dredge under these and other circumstances. Respondent argues more persuasively the issue of cumulative impacts. There are about 350 residences in Aqualane Shores, of which only 150 have boatslips similar to that proposed by Petitioner. This raises the prospect of an additional 200 boatslips as a cumulative impact on water and biological resources.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application. ENTERED on May 26, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on May 26, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4-5 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder)-6: rejected as irrelevant. 7: rejected as recitation of evidence. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, irrelevant, and not findings of fact. 11-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-25: rejected as unnecessary. 26-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Miles L. Scofield Qualified Representative Turrell & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 33942 Christine C. Stretesky Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact At all times to the issues herein the Department of Environmental Protection was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of water pollution and the issuance of dredge and fill permits in the specified waters of this state. Mr. Byrd has been a resident of the City of Treasure Island, Florida for many years and resides at 123 123rd Avenue in that city. His property is located on Boca Ciega Bay next to a public boat ramp operated by the City. On April 12, 1995, the City of Treasure Island applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a permit to construct a dock six feet wide by seventy-five feet long, located on the edge of its property on which the public boat ramp is located. This property is located in a basin off Boca Ciega Bay, which is classified as a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The dock involves the placement of pilings in the water, and the construction of a walkway thereon. In order to be obtain a permit, the applicant must provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not degrade water quality and will be in the public interest. The project is permanent in nature, but the temporary concerns raised by construction have been properly addressed in the permit. In the instant case, the dock is intended to accommodate the boating public which will utilize it to more safely launch, board, debark, and recover small boats at the ramp in issue. The dock will be equipped with a hand rail which will increase the safety of the project. Evidence establishes that without the dock, boaters have to enter the water to launch and recover their boats on a ramp can be slippery and dangerous. The site currently in use as a boat ramp, a part of which will be used for the dock, is almost totally free of any wildlife. No evidence could be seen of any sea grasses or marine life such as oysters, and there was no indication the proposed site is a marine habitat. Manatees do periodically inhabit the area, and warning signs would be required to require construction be stopped when manatee are in the area. The water depth in the immediate area and the width of the waterway is such that navigation would not be adversely impacted by the dock construction, nor is there any indication that water flow would be impeded. No adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources would occur and taken together, it is found that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is within the public interest. Concerning the issue of water quality, the applicant has proposed the use of turbidity curtains during construction which would provide reasonable assurances that water quality would not be degraded by or during construction. The water depths in the area are such that propeller dredging and turbidity associated therewith should not be a problem. No evidence was presented or, apparently is on file, to indicate any documented water quality violations at the site, and it is unlikely that water quality standards will be violated by the construction and operation of the structure. The best evidence available indicates there would be no significant cumulative impacts from this project. Impacts from presently existing similar projects and projects reasonably expected in the future, do not, when combined with the instant project, raise the possibility of adverse cumulative degradation of water quality or other factors of concern. By the same token, it is found that secondary impacts resulting from the construction of the project would be minimal. It is also found that this project is eligible for an exemption from the requirements to obtain a permit because of the Department's implementation on October 3, 1995 of new rules relating to environmental resources. However, the City has agreed to follow through with the permitting process notwithstanding the exemption and to accept the permit including all included conditions. This affords far more protection to the environment than would be provided if the conditions to the permit, now applicable to this project, were avoided under a reliance on the exemption to which the City is entitled under current rules. To be sure, evidence presented by Mr. Byrd clearly establishes the operation of the existing boat ramp creates noise, fumes, diminished water conditions and an atmosphere which is annoying, discomfiting, and unpleasant to him and to some of his neighbors who experience the same conditions. Many of the people using the facility openly use foul language and demonstrate a total lack of respect for others. Many of these people also show no respect for the property of others by parking on private property and contaminating the surrounding area with trash and other discardables. It may well be that the presently existing conditions so described were not contemplated when the ramp was built some twenty years ago. An increase in population using water craft, and the development and proliferation of alternative watercraft, such as the personal watercraft, (Ski-Doo), as well as an apparent decline in personal relations skills have magnified the noise and the problem of fumes and considerably. It is not likely, however, that these conditions, most of which do not relate to water quality standards and the other pertinent considerations involved here, will be increased or affected in any way by the construction of the dock in issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue to the city the requested permit to construct the dock in issue at the existing public boat ramp at the east end of 123rd Avenue right of way in the City of Treasure Island. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Schnell, Esquire 3535 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 James W. Denhardt, Esquire 2700 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a letter of consent to use State-owned submerged lands (SL) and an environmental resource permit (ERP) (which are processed together as a SLERP) for the single-family dock proposed by Pamela C. Damico, which would extend 770 feet into the Atlantic Ocean from her property on Plantation Key in Monroe County (DEP Permit 44-0298211-001).
Findings Of Fact Pamela C. Damico owns property at 89505 Old Highway on Plantation Key in the Upper Florida Keys in Monroe County. Her property includes submerged land extending between 212 and 233 feet into the Atlantic Ocean, which is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). She applied to DEP for a permit to build a dock and boat mooring at her property. In its final configuration, the proposed docking structure would have an access pier from the shoreline that would extend across her submerged land, and then farther across State-owned submerged lands, for a total distance of 770 feet from the shoreline. A primary goal of the application was to site the mooring area in water with a depth of at least -4 feet mean low water (MLW). Mrs. Damico’s consultants believed that this was required for a SLERP in Monroe County. In addition, they were aware that -4 feet MLW would be required to get a dock permit from Islamorada, Village of Islands. The beliefs of Mrs. Damico’s consultants regarding the depth requirement for the mooring site were based in part on incorrect interpretations of DEP rules by certain DEP staff made both during Mrs. Damico’s application process and during the processing of other applications in the past. Those incorrect interpretations were based in part on ambiguous and incorrect statements in guidance documents published by DEP over the years. (Similarly, certain DEP staff made incorrect interpretations of DEP rules regarding a supposedly absolute 500-foot length limit for any dock in Monroe County.) See Conclusions of Law for the correct interpretations of DEP rules. Petitioner owns oceanfront property to the south and adjacent to Mrs. Damico’s. As expressed by Petitioner’s owner and operator, Dr. William Carter, Petitioner has concerns regarding impacts of the proposed docking structure on navigation, boating safety, and natural resources, including seagrasses, stony corals, tarpon, and bonefish. Several changes were made to the proposed docking structure to address concerns raised by Petitioner. In the earlier proposals, the access pier would have been supported by 10-inch square concrete piles, which must be installed using a construction barge and heavy equipment. In its final form, to reduce the direct impacts to the seagrasses and stony corals, it was proposed that the first 550 feet of the access pier from the point of origin on the shoreline would be installed using pin piles, which are made of aluminum and are 4.5 inches square inside a vinyl sleeve five inches square, and can be installed by hand. Instead of the planks originally proposed for the decking of the access pier, a grating material was substituted, which would allow greater light penetration to the seagrasses below. The orientation and length of the proposed docking structure was modified several times in an effort to achieve the optimal siting of the mooring platform. Handrails were proposed for the access pier, and no tie-up cleats are provided there. In combination with the elevation of the decking at five feet above mean high water (MHW), the handrails would discourage use of the pier for mooring by making it impractical if not impossible in most cases. Railing also was proposed for the north side of the mooring platform to discourage mooring there, and a sign was proposed to be placed on the north side of the platform saying that mooring there is prohibited. These measures were proposed to restrict mooring to the south side of the mooring platform, where a boat lift would be installed, which would protect the large seagrass beds that are on the north side of the terminal platform. (Mooring an additional boat along the end of the 8-foot long mooring platform, which faces the prevailing oceanic waves, is impractical if not impossible.) To make the docking structure less of a navigation and boating safety hazard, it was proposed that a USCG flashing white light would be installed at the end of the terminal platform. In its final configuration, the docking structure would preempt approximately 2,240 square feet of State-owned submerged land, plus approximately 200 square feet preempted by the proposed boat lift. In addition, it would preempt approximately 900 square feet of Mrs. Damico’s privately-owned submerged land. Mrs. Damico’s private property has approximately 352 linear feet of shoreline. Dr. Lin testified for Petitioner that the proposed docking structure would preempt a total of 3,760 square feet. This calculation included 520 square feet of preemption by the boat lift, but the proposed boat lift is for a smaller boat that would preempt only approximately 200 square feet. Intending to demonstrate that the proposed docking structure would wharf out to a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, Mrs. Damico’s consultants submitted a bathymetric survey indicating a -4 MLW contour at the mooring platform. In fact, the line indicated on the survey is not a valid contour line, and the elevations in the vicinity do not provide reasonable assurance that the mooring area of the docking structure in its final configuration is in water with a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, or that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel. The evidence does, however, provide reasonable assurance that the proposed mooring platform is in water with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, and that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, which would avoid damage to seagrass bed and other biological communities. The evidence was not clear whether there is another possible configuration available to Petitioner to wharf out to a mooring area with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, not over seagrasses, and with water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, that would not require as long an access pier, or preempt as many square feet of State-owned submerged land. A noticed general permit (NGP) can be used for a dock of 2,000 square feet or less, in water with a minimum depth of -2 feet MLW, and meeting certain other requirements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-341.215 and 62-341.427. The evidence was not clear whether an NGP can be used in an OFW in Monroe County in water less than -3 feet FLW, according to DEP’s interpretation of its rules. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-312.400, Part IV. Initially, mitigation for impacts to natural resources was proposed. However, DEP’s staff determined that no mitigation was required because there would not be any adverse effects from the docking structure, as finally proposed. For the same reason, DEP staff determined that there would be no significant cumulative adverse impacts and that no further analysis of cumulative impacts was necessary. Actually, there will be adverse impacts to natural resources. The biologist for Mrs. Damico determined that there are some seagrasses and numerous stony corals in the footprint of the access pier, in addition to other resources less susceptible to impacts (such as macro-algae and loggerhead sponges). These organisms will be disturbed or destroyed by the installation of the access pier. The biologist quantified the impacts to round starlet corals by assuming the placement of two supporting piles, four feet apart, every ten feet for the length of the pier, and assuming impacts to the stony corals in a quadrat centered on each pile location and three times the diameter of the pile. Using this method, it was estimated that approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would be destroyed by the installation of the docking structure. The impacts assessed by Mrs. Damico’s biologist and DEP assume that construction would “step out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. This construction method is not required by the proposed SLERP. It would have to be added as a permit condition. Petitioner did not prove that the impacts to a few seagrasses and approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would damage the viability of those biological communities in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. Direct and indirect impacts to other species from the installation and maintenance of the docking structure would not be expected. Impacts to listed species, including manatees and sawfish, would not be anticipated. Manatees sometimes are seen in the vicinity but do not rely on the area for foraging or breeding. Sawfish are more likely to frequent the bay waters than the ocean. Migratory tarpon and bonefish use the area and might swim out around the docking structure to avoid passing under it. Resident tarpon and some other fish species might congregate under the docking structure. The proposed docking structure does not block or cross any marked navigation channel and is in a shallow area near the shore where boats are supposed to be operated at reduced speeds. Nonetheless, the proposed structure poses more than a casual navigation hazard, especially due to its length, which is significantly greater than any docking structure in the vicinity. In conducting its staff analysis of the impacts on navigation and boating safety, DEP understood that the closest marked navigation channel is at least two miles away from the proposed docking structure. Actually, there also is a marked channel at the Tavernier Creek, which is less than half a mile north of the site. It is not uncommon for boaters to leave the marked Tavernier Creek channel to motor south in the shallow water closer to shore; they also sometimes cut across the shallow waters near the site to enter the Tavernier Creek channel when heading north. There also are other unmarked or unofficially-marked channels even closer to the proposed docking structure. In good weather and sea conditions, the proposed docking structure would be obvious and easy to avoid. In worse conditions, especially at night, it could be a serious hazard. To reduce the navigational hazard posed by the dock, reflective navigation indicators are proposed to be placed every 30 feet along both sides of the access pier, and the USCG flashing white light is proposed for the end of terminal platform. These measures would help make the proposed docking structure safer but would not eliminate the risks entirely. The light helps when it functions properly, it can increase the risk if boaters come to rely on it, and it goes out. Both the light and reflective indicators are less effective in fog and bad weather and seas. The risk increases with boats operated by unskilled and especially intoxicated boaters. It is common for numerous boaters to congregate on weekends and holidays at Holiday Isle, which is south of the proposed docking structure. Alcoholic beverages are consumed there. Some of these boaters operate their boats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure, including “cutting the corner” to the Tavernier Creek pass channel, instead of running in deeper water to enter the pass at the ocean end of the navigation channel. This increases the risk of collision, especially at night or in bad weather and sea conditions. DEP sought comments from various state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife. None of these agencies expressed any objection to the proposed docking structure. No representative from any of those agencies testified or presented evidence at the hearing. Area fishing guides and sports fishermen fish for bonefish and tarpon in the flats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. If built, the proposed docking structure would spoil this kind of fishing, especially bonefishing, or at least make it more difficult. The more similar docking structures installed in the area, the greater the difficulties in continuing to use the area for this kind of fishing. On the other hand, resident tarpon and some other fish species could be attracted by such docking structures. Mrs. Damico’s application initially offered a money donation to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund if mitigation was required. The proposed permit includes a requirement to donate $5,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), before construction begins, for the maintenance of mooring buoys to reduce recreational boater impacts at the coral reef areas. The reefs are miles from the site of the proposed docking structure, and the donation does not offset project impacts. Rather, as stated in the proposed permit, its purpose is to “satisfy public interest requirements.” As a federal agency, the FKNMS does not accept donations directly. Donations would have to be made to the Sanctuary Friends of the Florida Keys (SFFK) for use by the FKNMS for buoy maintenance. A condition would have to be added to the ERP to ensure that the donation would be used for the intended purpose. In a bid to defeat Mrs. Damico’s attempt to satisfy public interest requirements, Petitioner offered to donate $10,000 to SFFK for the buoy maintenance if DEP denied the permit. Petitioner’s offer should not affect the evaluation of the proposed docking structure under the public interest criteria. DEP staff evaluated the proposed ERP under the public interest criteria to be essentially neutral and determined that the $5,000 donation would make it clearly in the public interest. This analysis was flawed. With or without the $5,000 donation, the proposed docking structure would have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare; an adverse effect on navigation; an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values in the vicinity; and an adverse effect on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It would not have any positive public interest effects. Its effects would be permanent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying a permit for the proposed docking structure; if granted, there should be a condition requiring construction to “reach out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of October, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia M. Silver, Esquire Silver Law Group Post Office Box 710 Islamorada, Florida 33036-0710 Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. at Islamorada Professional Center 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036-3614 Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1978, Gulfside applied to DER for the issuance of a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant on property owned by it on Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. The proposed plant is designed to serve a condominium complex consisting of 64 units, with the expectation that 350 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring a minimum plant capacity of 22,400 gallons per day. The plant described in the application has a capacity to handle 24,000 gallons per day. The proposed plant will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the proposed plant and then discharged into two percolation ponds associated with the facility. The plant is designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. In addition, the plant is designed with duplex blowers and pumps to insure continued operation in the event of failure of one of the units. An emergency generator is included to provide back-up power for the entire plant, including blowers, pumps and chlorinators. Perdido Key, where the proposed plant is to be located, is a barrier island located off the coast of Escambia County, Florida, near the Florida- Alabama border. There is substantial residential development presently on Perdido Key, but no central sewer system exists to service the area. Currently, only septic tanks and package sewer plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. Adjacent to Perdido Key is Old River, which has been classified a Class III water. Soils on Perdido Key are primarily sandy, and as a result, have a high percolation rate. The problem of high percolation rate through the soils of Perdido Key was adequately addressed by Gulfside in the design of percolation ponds associated with the proposed plant. The two percolation ponds are designed to be located at a minimum of four feet elevation above maximum high ground water level. In fact, during DER's review of this application, Gulfside agreed to raise the bottom elevation of these percolation ponds in response to a concern regarding their initial location in close proximity to the water table. The problem of the expected fast percolation rate was addressed in designing the size of these percolation ponds, and also taken into consideration in designing the method of distributing effluent across the bottom surface of the ponds. With regard to the latter consideration, initial design of the project contemplated a single point for discharge of effluent into each percolation pond. However, Gulfside has agreed to redesign these percolation ponds in such a fashion to discharge effluent more evenly throughout the bottom area of the ponds too combat the problem of the excess percolation rate. The proposed percolation ponds are designed with surface areas in excess of 15,000 square feet. The ponds were initially designed utilizing a six-to-one slope, which would have given twice the bottom surface area of the three-to-one slope eventually required by DER in the process of reviewing the application. The three-to-one slope shown in the plans and specifications results in a bottom surface area of 2,974 square feet. However, the engineering report submitted with the application indicates that percolation ponds will have a bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, it would appear appropriate for the ponds to have a minimum bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, this problem can easily be rectified by raising the bottom elevation of the percolation ponds by approximately one foot. This requirement should be imposed as a condition to the granting of the requested permit. The proposed plant, although designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, is not designed to remove nutrients from the effluent. However, the evidence establishes that these nutrients. Will be removed by a combination of filtration through soil substrata and biological action in the percolation ponds. Gulfside has also agreed to install a spartina marsh waterward of the percolation ponds to act as a final nutrient scrubber. The system design is reasonably calculated to assure removal of harmful quantities of nutrients, and no competent evidence was adduced to indicate that the system design was not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, although the treatment plant is proposed to be located only 50 feet from Old River, there is no indication that it will, in fact, result in any adverse impacts to that water body. In addition, DER has no rules or guidelines regulating distances from which package sewer plants, such as that proposed in this application, should be located from bodies of water such as Old River. It should be noted here that the application which is the subject of this proceeding is solely for the purpose of construction of the proposed facility. DER has imposed a permit condition requiring an initial four months operation for appropriate testing to determine compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by DER before issuance of an operation permit. If testing demonstrates noncompliance with DER's rules and regulations, the operating permit for the facility can be denied. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that members of Petitioner, Southest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc., own property in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and that they utilize waters surrounding Perdido Key for sailing, swimming, crabbing and other recreational uses. Both Petitioner and Gulfside have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Gulfside's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 5 have also been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. To the extent that Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by either Petitioner or Gulfside are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George M. Threadgill, applied on May 5, 1982, for a dredge and fill permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The application was for an extension to an existing pier which would be approximately 100 feet long by 4 feet wide with a platform on the end which would be approximately 10 feet long by 14 feet wide. On May 11, 1982, Respondent modified the application by adjusting the angle of the pier extension so it would not extend in front of his neighbor's property. The site of the project was to be on Innerarity Point on Perdido Bay, Escambia County. The existing pier is approximately 90 to 100 feet long. Prior to Hurricane Frederick in September, 1979, the existing pier extended an additional 40 feet into Perdido Bay. The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida with jurisdiction under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, to regulate and require a permit for the construction of stationary installations within waters of the State. The Department also has permitting jurisdiction over dredge and fill operations in such waters pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.28(2) and 4.29(1). The water at the project site is extremely shallow. Witnesses O'Neil and George Threadgill established that the water at the end of the existing pier ranges in depth from being dry in the winter to approximately 2 feet 6 inches during normal water levels. At the end of the proposed pier, the water is from 2 feet 9 inches deep to "waist deep" during normal water levels. There are no grass beds or other areas of significant marine vegetation in the area of the project. Expert witness Snowdon demonstrated that the bay bottom in the area consists of various grades of sand. There are no lagoons or inlets on the adjacent shoreline, and there are no navigational channels in the vicinity of the Project area. The construction of the pier extension is not expected to interfere wish wildlife in the area. There will be some amount of turbidity introduced into the water column as a result of placing the pier pilings in the water. Coarse sand of the type found in the area will settle rapidly out of the water column. Significant water quality problems would only be encountered if pockets of sediment are encountered while "jetting" the pilings into the substrate. The use of turbidity control measures will alleviate water quality problems associated with construction. Based on unrefuted expert testimony of witnesses Snowdon and Fancher, no water quality degradation will occur during and after construction of the pier. The majority of boat traffic in the area consists of mullet fishermen. The mullet boats navigate in the project area, but, as even Petitioners admit, they generally run either around or waterward of an iron stake located approximately 500 feet from shore. When the mullet boats do come within the project site, it is merely to pass through. They do not set their mullet nets within the project area. The existence of the pier will not significantly interfere with navigational patterns for commercial and private fishermen, nor for other types of marine craft or purposes. A sandbar approximately 20 to 25 feet wide exists along the shoreline beginning approximately 10 feet in front of the applicant's existing pier. Prior to September, 1979, the existing pier extended past the sandbar. There was no evidence presented that the pier blocked access or navigation at that time. The Petitioners do not object to the pier being rebuilt to its pre-1979 dimensions, nor to an area beyond the sandbar. At normal or high tide, Petitioners are able to run their boat straight out into Perdido Bay from a distance of 60 feet from the shore due to their having a "short shank motor" on their boat. The existence of the pier across the sandbar will not significantly interfere with the Petitioners' access to their pier or their waterfront. The existence of the pier will not affect navigational patterns of other neighbors. Paddleboats use the waters in the vicinity of the project area. Paddleboats can navigate under the adjacent pier owned by the Petitioners. The adjacent pier is approximately 5 feet high as measured from the top of the pier to the sand bottom. The proposed pier will measure slightly less than 6 feet from the top to the sand bottom. The existence of the proposed pier extension was thus shown to not significantly disrupt recreational paddleboat navigation in the area.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application for a dredge and fill permit by George M. Threadgill for the construction of an extension to his existing pier on Innerarity Point in Perdido Bay in Escambia County, Florida, be GRANTED and that the necessary permit be issued. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. and Marie M. Jackson Route 1, Box 826 Pensacola, Florida 32507 Mr. George M. Threadgill 4626 LeHavre Way Pensacola, Florida 32505 E. Gary Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Homeport Homeowners Association, represents the property owners of Homeport Development. Homeport Development is a planned unit development consisting of eighty single family lots. The development is located at Navarre Beach, Florida, on the south shore of Santa Rosa Sound. At least six of the development's lots are located on the water. The area surrounding Homeport development is primarily residential in character, with some condominiums adjoining the residential area and a canal leading to a public boat ramp within several hundred feet of the development. The area is fairly pristine. However, there are several piers of varying lengths located in the surrounding area. At least one of those piers is close to 400 feet in length. None of the piers have posed any significant pollution or water quality problems and have not had an adverse impact on the public as a whole. Nor were any of these piers shown to adversely impact the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, cause harmful erosion or shoaling or pose a navigational hazard to boats using the area. Water depths offshore are shallow and do not get over three to four feet for approximately 650 feet. On May 25, 1989, the applicant submitted an application (permit application No. 17-165358-1) to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a 727 foot by five foot pier with a 100 foot by four foot "T", ten boat slips and a hexagonal gazebo. The pier would be constructed out of wood and rest on wooden pilings. The pilings are spaced so as not to impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The wood used to construct the pier would be marine treated lumber. The wood would not be treated using creosote. The evidence did not demonstrate that the marine treated wood the applicant intends to use in the construction of the pier would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The proposed pier would be located on property leased to the the Association as part of Homeport Development. The pier would extend from the road adjacent to the lot on which the pier is located, would cross an area of wetlands which is under the jurisdiction of the department and would cross over the adjoining beach to reach the waters of Santa Rosa Sound. The pier would have a stair ingress and egress to the beach and the public may use these stairs to cross over the pier. The water portion of the dock would cross over a sandy bottom; and therefore, would not adversely affect vegetation. The pier is intended to be a permanent amenity of the development. Construction of other piers by lot owners who have waterfront property is limited and this pier is intended to be a substitute for such private docks. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the pier, as it was originally proposed, did not meet departmental standards for water quality and the public interest. Specifically, the Department determined that the 727 foot pier would likely pose a hazard to the navigation of small boats in the area and that the gazebo would have an adverse impact on the salt marsh in which it would be located. On August 8, 1989, the Department issued an Intent to Deny based on its assessment of the proposed project. The Intent to Deny provided that the project could be permitted if the gazebo were moved to an upland location not within the jurisdiction of the Department and the pier shortened to approximately 400 feet to remove the hazard to navigation posed by the 727 foot pier. The applicant took the Department's advice and modified its application. Specifically, the applicant modified the project to relocate the gazebo to an upland site and shorten the pier to 400 feet. The applicant also eliminated the ten boat slips. All other specifics of the original application remained the same. On August 9, 1990, the Department issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of a 400 foot pier subject to several permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other piers in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this pier. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed pier would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the better evidence demonstrated that the pier would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. The evidence demonstrated that some temporary impact on the vegetation of the wetlands would occur in the immediate path of construction of the pier. However, the evidence also demonstrated that the impact would not be significant and would repair itself within a reasonable period of time. The length of the pier does not pose a hazard to navigation of either small or large boats, or motorized or non-mechanized craft. However, the permit does not require the pier to be lighted during periods of darkness or adverse conditions. Given the fact that the location of the proposed pier does not appear to be in a well lit area, and because of the pier's proximity to a canal leading to a public boat ramp that is subject to periodic high use, the pier would likely pose a hazard to navigation should adequate lighting not be required. Therefore, a condition that the pier be constructed with lights sufficient to illuminate it to a person in the water during periods of darkness or poor viewing conditions should be added to the draft permit attached to the Department's Intent to Issue. Subject to the addition of the above condition, permit application NO. 17-165358-1 sought by Homeport Homeowners Association, for a permit to construct a 400 foot pier should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a permit to construct a 400 foot pier as sought by Homeport Homeowners Association in permit application NO. 17-165358-1 and subject to the additional permit condition that lighting be added to the pier. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-6184 The facts contained in the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in the first two sentences of paragraph one were not shown by the evidence and are not appropriate facts for official recognition. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 11, 13, 14 and 19 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 15, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 12 and 16 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant or immaterial. The facts contained in the first paragraph of finding number 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second paragraph of finding 4 are adopted. Paragraph 2 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are legal argument. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate except for the fact referencing the a navigational hazard which fact was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the second sentence of paragraph 8 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the first and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the fact relating a navigation hazard which was not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Callaway P.O. Box 36097 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Bruce A. McDonald 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3C Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400 Barbara Ownes 113 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70433 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400
The Issue Schofield Corporation of Orlando has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct and operate a Class III trash/yard trash landfill in Orange County, Florida. The issues are whether the applicant is entitled to the permit and, if so, what conditions should attach. Also at issue is Schofield Corporation's motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Schofield Corporation of Orlando (Schofield), owns the proposed landfill site and existing permits for the site. The proposed site is located in West Orange County, southwest of the intersection of State Road 545 and Schofield Road on the west half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 23 south, range 27 east, comprising approximately sixty acres within a larger eighty-acre parcel. In some undetermined distant past the site was cultivated in citrus. It is currently being excavated as a borrow pit. The materials proposed to be placed in the landfill include trash, yard trash, construction and demolition debris and clean debris, as defined in DER Rule 17-701.020, F.A.C. The northern half of the site is flat and will be used first for the composting operation. The southern excavated portion of the site will receive the permitted fill material until it is flattened. Then, the two functions will alternate; the composting will occur on the south, and the north end will be excavated to receive fill. The proposed facility will be operated by Chambers Corporation, a nationally recognized waste management company with approximately 20 years of experience in solid waste management. The landfill site will be completely fenced, with a gate entrance mid-site between the landfill and compost area. The gate will be locked when the facility is not in operation, and will be patrolled by security personnel 24 hours a day. "Spotters", or inspectors will be employed to examine incoming waste loads at the gate, from a high gantry, and at the place where the waste is deposited. The loads will be monitored by a television camera, and all haulers will be under contract. The landfill will not accept loads from trucks coming off the road looking for a place to dump. Receptacles will be maintained on site to receive errant non-permitted waste that is found in a load, and that waste will be properly disposed of elsewhere. Schofield has several permits related to its proposed operation. These include a type III landfill permit from Orange County, a compost facility permit from DER, a general construction and demolition debris landfill permit from DER, a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District, and a permit to excavate or mine from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Schofield also has a contract to receive yard waste from Orange County. The initial term of contract requires at least ten percent of the yard waste to be composted or recycled, with the percentage amount to be renegotiated in subsequent contract renewals. In the hierarchy of landfills, DER considers Class III the least environmentally sensitive. Problems with unauthorized waste and with water quality occur more frequently with Class I landfills, defined as accommodating more than twenty tons a day of residential garbage. In this case DER has proposed to grant Schofield its Class III permit without the requirement of a bottom liner or a leachate or gas control system because of the nature of the waste that will be accepted and because of the rigorous controls, described above, to avoid receiving unauthorized or hazardous waste. The Petitioners are an individual and a homeowners' association representing a residential area approximately a half mile south of the proposed site. Petitioners contend that the applicant's data is insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Petitioners contend that the landfill, if approved, should be required to have a liner to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. They further contend that the groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate to detect vertical movement of contaminated leachate into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of water supply in Orange County. Hydrogeology The site of the proposed landfill is within a high recharge area. Water percolates rapidly though the soil, moving downward into the aquifer, and laterally off site. The site is considered Karst terrain, underlined with limerock. There is evidence of relic sinkholes, thousands of years old, but there is a low probability of future open sinkhole development. The geology in the area of the site provides adequate structural support for the proposed facility. An aquifer is generally defined as a unit of material which contains water and can give up a sufficient amount of yield to provide some productive flow for pumpage. Below the site there are two aquifers: the shallow water table, or surficial aquifer, containing clean well-drained fine sands, about 70 feet down; and the Floridan, primarily limestone, encountered at a depth of approximately 115 feet. The two are separated by a confining layer of less permeable sands and clay. Flow in the Floridan at the site is primarily from the west to east. Flow in the surficial is also generally from west to east, but the Petitioners theorize, and have presented competent supporting evidence, that there are fissures in the confining layer, allowing some internal drainage within the site, causing surficial water to flow vertically into the Floridan, rather than laterally off-site in an eastward direction. Based on recent data taken from two piezometers installed near the middle of the site, the applicant's hydrogeologist, James Golden, concedes that "mounding" exists along the eastern boundary of the site, reflecting some flow westerly back into the interior of the site. Petitioners' theory regarding internal draining of the site is based in part on data as to groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation or high groundwater table is the elevation at which water stands on a continuous surface under the site. Jammal and Associates is a consultant firm which has done field studies of this and neighboring sites in the past, for various purposes. Some open bore readings taken by Jammal and Associates in a 1983 study for the Orange County Rapid Infiltration Basin project indicate groundwater table levels on site up to 126 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Data (NGVD). Open bore readings are less reliable than cased hole readings; due to collapses within the hole, artificially high readings are sometimes obtained. Data from the applicant's consultants reveals groundwater tables at 96-98 NGVD. This data was most recently obtained in December 1991 from sealed and surveyed piezometer casings, but not from the area of the site where Jammal's higher readings were obtained. Although it may be conjectured that Jammal's high readings are anomalous, additional sealed borings need to be obtained before the anomaly is confirmed. Groundwater elevations are significant also to determine the depth to which the landfill may be excavated. Based on its December 1991 readings, obtained after the application for permit was filed, the applicant agreed to raise the proposed bottom of the landfill to approximately five feet above the level of the estimated high (wet weather) groundwater table in the area. Water Quality and Monitoring Specific conditions of the proposed permit include DER's requirements that Class GII water quality standards be met at the boundary of the zone of discharge, in accordance with Rule 17-3, F.A.C. The zone of discharge for this facility is a three-dimensional volume defined in the vertical plane as the top of the ground to the base of the most surficial aquifer, and horizontally 100 feet from the edge of the waste-filled area, or the property boundary, whichever is less. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by the applicant includes one upstream monitoring well on the west side of the site and five wells along the east side of the site, with an additional well at the south, between the project and the Petitioners' residential area. The wells extend down into the upper zone of the surficial aquifer, but not into the deeper limestone Floridan. The downstream wells should detect any contamination in the surficial aquifer flowing from west to east at the zone of discharge. However, they will not pick up contamination draining internally within the site and into the Floridan. Such contamination is possible, even though leachate from Class III- type wastes is expected to be relatively benign. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) have not typically been a problem in Class III landfills, unless those landfills were previously operated as Class I sites. Secondary drinking water standards for certain metals have been violated at some Class III sites, but such violations are often related to the problem of sampling newly-installed wells. From DER records, Petitioners presented evidence of consistent drinking water quality standard violations in Class III landfills. That such violations can occur in Class III landfills is clearly established. It is not so clear that such violations will occur in this facility, given the proposed controls on load content. However, even acceptable materials will not avoid the production of leachate or gas. Within demolition waste there are chemically bound components which are inseparable, for example, creosote and other preservatives, glues, paints, resins, varnishes and stains. The lignin, tannins and volatile organic acids which are produced when wood decomposes alter the pH of the groundwater. As the water becomes more acidic, heavy metals that were typically bound up in the waste or in the soil, are released in soluble form and travel with the water. The decomposition process occurring in the construction and demolition waste is enhanced by the addition of yard trash which becomes the food source for the biodegradation. Summary of Findings and Proposed Permit Conditions If, as applicant suggests, all groundwater moves primarily from west to east within the site, given the proposed operational controls and the proposed monitoring plan, reasonable assurances have been provided that water quality standards will not be violated beyond the zone of discharge. That is, any contamination likely to occur will be contained within the surficial aquifer and within the 100 feet or property line horizontal boundary. Transmissivity of the surficial aquifer is low enough to allow mixing of the leachate before it reaches the zone of discharge. The Petitioners, however, have presented credible evidence sufficient to question the groundwater flow premise and sufficient to require additional conditions on the permit. If leachate reaches the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer, it will move rapidly off site. In its proposed recommended order DER has suggested additional permit conditions and in its adoption of the proposed recommended order, the applicant has accepted those additional permit conditions. Those permit conditions recognize the fact that data presently provided by the applicant is insufficient to overcome the evidence by Petitioners as to the hydrogeological characteristics of the site with the possibility of internal drainage and vertical intrusion of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer. The proposed recommended order provides this finding: ...that the ground water monitoring plan as proposed in this proceeding is adequate, provided that there be added to the permit conditions that the permittee conduct appropriate water table testing with cased piezometers during the next wet season to determine whether ground water flow is internal within the site and therefore not intercepted by the present ground water monitoring wells. The permittee shall consult with DER and get approval for the location and construction of these wells prior to their installation. The results shall be immediately submitted to the DER. The ground water monitoring requirements should be modified if necessary at that time pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(5) to assure proper monitoring at this site. (DER proposed Recommended Order, p. 17) The ground water monitoring plan modification suggested by DER is that deeper monitoring wells, into the Floridan aquifer, be required if the additional testing reveals the likelihood of internal on-site ground water drainage. These conditions are still inadequate since they lack specificity with regard to the extent of testing, the location and construction of the wells, and the amendments to the monitoring program to be required if internal drainage is confirmed. Moreover, the proposed conditions fail to address the possibility that the permit should require a liner for the landfill if the data to be obtained reveals the likelihood that contaminates will penetrate into the groundwater of the Floridan. Monitoring programs, however effective, only predict or detect problems; they do not remediate them. Groundwater contamination by landfills is not quickly and easily reversed. Unlike discharges from other facilities such as spray application or deep well injection, the leachate from a landfill is not "turned off". Without the additional data which all parties agree is needed, it is impossible to determine what additional conditions, if any, should be required or what amendments, if any, need to be made to the applicant's proposed monitoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue its Final Order denying the application for Class III land fill permit. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 3.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12.-23. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25.-30. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-41. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance throughout the recommended findings. 44.-50. Adopted in Preliminary Statement and paragraph 4. 51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 2. 54.-55. Rejected as statement of testimony rather than finding of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 58.-97. Rejected as argument or statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Subparts a), b), c) and e) are rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. The evidence suggests that violations might occur and that insufficient data has been produced. Subpart d) is adopted, by implication in paragraph 18. 99.-101. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant, given the stipulation related to Section 403.412, F.S. standing. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. If internal drainage is shown to exist, conditions other than additional monitoring wells may be required. Adopted in paragraph 17. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19.-21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 12. 24.-26. Adopted in general in paragraph 14. 27. The unlikelihood that unauthorized waste will be dumped is adopted in paragraph 3. Whether there will be a violation of ground water quality standards at the zone of discharge was not established, given the need for additional data on internal draining. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 87 Orlando, FL 32802 Irby G. Pugh, Esquire 218 Annie Street Orlando, FL 32806 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and his wife own residential property on the northwest side of Key Thargo in Monroe County, Florida. The property is situated on Florida Bay, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The area surrounding the Depkins' property is predominately residential, but there is some nearby commercial development, including a motel which is located on an adjoining parcel. A seawall runs the entire length of the shoreline of the Depkins' property. An L-shaped dock and a covered dock extend out into the water from opposite ends of the seawall forming a cove. The Depkins, who live in Key Thargo only a portion of the year, have a boat which they currently moor alongside the L-shaped dock in that area of the cove where the depth of the water is the greatest. The operation of the boat in this area of the cove has not caused any obvious damage to the bay bottom. Two of the Depkins' boats have sunk in stormy weather while moored alongside the L-shaped dock. Therefore, they now dock their boat at a marina when they are away from Key Largo. The Depkins propose to dredge a relatively small 600 square foot area of bay bottom, which they own, in the cove immediately waterward of the seawall. The depth of the water in this area of the cove now ranges from six inches to a foot and a half. The proposed dredging project would increase the depth of the water by two feet and thereby enable the Depkins to dock their boat alongside the seawall, a location they consider safer than the one they presently use for this purpose. The bay bottom which the Depkins propose to dredge consists primarily of bedrock which is irregularly shaped. Most of the bedrock is exposed, however, some of the depressions in the bedrock are filled with sediment. The remaining portion of the bay bottom is covered with sand which is inhabited by various living organisms. Approximately 50% to 75% of the proposed dredging site is covered with vegetation. The dominant vegetation is live algae attached to the exposed bedrock. Various species of algae are present, including red algae, which is the preferred habitat for juvenile lobster. A small portion of the site is covered by live turtlegrass. These few patches of turtlegrass are found in the depressions in the bedrock that are filled with sediment. Without sediment turtlegrass cannot grow. Algae and turtlegrass play significant roles in the production and sustenance of marine life. They have considerable value as a habitat and as a source of food for other living organisms. In addition, they help reduce turbidity and water pollution. If the Depkins dredged the proposed project site, all existing biota within the boundaries of the site would be eliminated and it is unlikely that the area would experience a complete or significant recovery. About twelve to fourteen years ago the Depkins dredged sand from the bay bottom near their L-shaped dock. Almost 30 years ago the owners of the motel situated on the parcel of land adjoining the Depkins' property undertook a similar sand dredging project in the bay. Neither of these prior dredging projects resulted in the long-term loss of any vegetation. If anything, the vegetation in these areas has increased. Unlike these previous projects, the project which the Depkins now propose to undertake involves the dredging of primarily bedrock, not sand. 1/ Revegetation typically does not occur following such dredging activity. It is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, more likely than not, the Depkins' proposed dredging project, if permitted, will result in the permanent loss of vegetation and consequently will have a long-term adverse effect on ambient water quality, the conservation of fish and other aquatic wildlife, and marine productivity. Furthermore, if the project was completed and the Depkins were to begin docking their boat alongside the seawall, there would be an increase in conflict turbidity attributable to the movement of the boat in and out of this area of shallow water. 2/ No measures to mitigate these adverse consequences have been proposed or suggested. 3/ There are many other owners of bayfront property in the Florida Keys who, like the Depkins, are desirous of dredging an access channel to the landward extent of their property. The Department's current practice is to deny these property owners permission to engage in such dredging activity. Although in the past year the Department has processed only about a half dozen permit applications for dredging projects similar in size and scope to that proposed by the Depkins, there would likely be a substantial increase in the number of permit applications were the Department to announce, through its disposition of the Depkins' permit application, that it was henceforth allowing such projects. If the Depkins and these other property owners were permitted to undertake such projects, the resulting damage to the marine environment would be widespread. The impact would extend far beyond the relatively small area of bay bottom that the Depkins propose to dredge. The Department has proposed the following reasonable alternative to the proposed dredging project which would also provide the Depkins with improved access to their residence by boat: Extend the existing [L-shaped] dock offshore to a terminal platform located at a water depth of at least four (4) feet MLW and elevate the intermediate portion of the dock to at least five (5) feet above MHW to prevent boat mooring in shallower areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying the Depkins' permit application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 f Administrative Hearings this of 8th day of August, 1989.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the Applicants should be granted a dredge and fill permit. Petitioner contends that the Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurances that the short-term and long-term effects of their proposed activities will not result in violations of the Department's water quality standards for both surface water and groundwater. The Applicants and the Department contend that reasonable assurances have been provided.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants are the owners of a 1,248-acre parcel of land located at the intersection of State Road 710 and State Road 711 in northern Palm Beach County, Florida. The Applicants are proposing to develop an industrial park known as "Palm Beach Park of Commerce" (PBPC). PBPC will provide sites for tenants to carry on various commercial and industrial activities. In order to prepare the site for development, the Applicants have designed a surface water management system. In order to develop the system, the Applicants must conduct dredging and filling activities in areas where the Department of Environmental Regulation has permitting jurisdiction. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a single family residential development known as "Caloosa." The development is located to the southeast of the proposed PBPC. Surface and ground water flows from the PBPC site are toward Caloosa. Residents of Caloosa and members of the Petitioner are entirely dependent on private individual wells for their drinking water. The surficial aquifer is the only viable source of drinking water. The proposed PBPC surface water management system would allow water to drain from the site into an excavated canal which would essentially follow the perimeter of the site. The canal would discharge at the southeast corner of the site into the Caloosa Canal, which runs through the Caloosa residential development. The Caloosa Canal is designated as a Class III water body. The Caloosa Canal drains into the "C-18 Canal," which is maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. The point at which the Caloosa Canal discharges into the C-18 Canal is approximately 2.4 miles from the PBPC site. The C-18 Canal is designated as a Class I water body. The C-18 Canal ultimately discharges into the Loxahatchee River Basin, a Class II water body, which is located approximately 12.9 miles from the PBPC site. It is possible that during some periods of the year, water from the PBPC site would ultimately find its way to the Jonathan Dickinson park, where water has been designated as "outstanding Florida waters." It is approximately 13.2 miles from the PBPC site to the Jonathan Dickinson Park. The PBPC site is a high, marginal, stressed Everglades system. It is a prairie or pine flatwood area. During periods of heavy rainfall, water covers most of the site. During dry periods, there is standing water only in depressions. Approximately 200 acres of the site are inundated with water during a sufficient portion of the year to support predominantly wetland vegetation. Approximately 24 acres of the wetlands on the site are directly connected to drainage ditches that presently rim the site. The ditches are connected to the Caloosa Canal so that these 24 acres are ultimately connected through canal systems to the Loxahatchee River. These wetland areas, which will be hereafter referenced as "jurisdictional wetlands," are the only wetland areas other than the existing drainage ditches over which the Department of Environmental Regulation asserts jurisdiction under its Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. As a part of its surface water management system, the Applicants propose to maintain 133.7 acres of the wetlands on the site in their natural condition. These wetland areas would be incorporated into the surface water management system so that surface water would flow into the wetlands, then through culverts or drainage ditches into the perimeter canal. The remaining wetlands on the site, including all of the "jurisdictional wetlands," would be filled. The wetlands on the PBPC site perform a significant water quality function. The wetlands serve as a filtration system. Wetland vegetation removes nutrients and turbidity from surface water before it is discharged into the canals and ultimately into the Loxahatchee River. The wetlands that the Applicants propose to preserve on the site would continue to perform that beneficial function. In order to mitigate the loss of the wetlands that would be filled, the Applicants propose to create approximately 85 acres of new wetland areas and to vegetate these areas. These artificially created wetlands, if properly constructed, vegetated and maintained, would perform the same beneficial functions as the natural wetland communities. The Applicants have proposed to introduce several safeguards into their water management system to assure that the quality of surface and ground water in the area will not be adversely impacted. The preservation of 133 acres of natural wetland areas and the creation of approximately 85 acres of artificial wetland areas is one of these safeguards. In addition, the surface water management system includes the creation of swales around water bodies so that the first one inch of stormwater runoff on the site will not drain directly into surface water bodies. By retaining the first one inch of runoff, pollutants contained in stormwater runoff will be retained on the site and will not enter surface or ground waters. Each commercial or industrial site at PBPC will be required to retain an additional one inch of stormwater runoff on the individual site. This will serve to filter pollutants out of stormwater runoff even before the runoff reaches the overall surface water management system in which one inch of runoff will also be retained on site. The Applicants have also agreed to establish a surface water quality management program to prohibit the discharge of any industrial waste into the surface water management system and to have the surface water management system maintained by the Northern Palm Beach Water Control District. There are further safeguards proposed by the Applicants. The Applicants have agreed to prohibit the most potentially hazardous industrial activities from being undertaken on the site. Applicants have also agreed to require each individual site plan to be reviewed by local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation so that potential water quality problems connected with site-specific uses can be identified and, if necessary, prohibited. The Applicants have agreed to establish an environmental liaison officer whose function will be to monitor all development on the site and report routinely to local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation regarding environmental issues. In order that any potential groundwater pollution can be detected and, if necessary, steps taken to remove pollutants from the groundwater, the Applicants have agreed to establish well- monitoring systems for the project as a whole and for individual sites. Individual site plans have not yet been formulated. It is not practical or possible to design water monitoring programs for the individual sites at this time. Once the nature of activities at a site are known, monitoring programs can be effectively set up and maintained. In the event that surface or ground water contamination occurs, it can be detected through monitoring programs, and the contaminants can be removed. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of the construction of the PBPC water management system will not result in violations of the Department's water quality standards for surface or ground water. By use of turbidity screens during construction, short-term impacts will be negligible. Absent any construction on the site beyond the creation of the surface water management system, it is likely that the quality of water leaving the PBPC site will be as good or better than at present. Since the Applicants have not yet located tenants or made individual site plans for commercial and industrial activities within PBPC, it is not possible to determine if some specific activity in the future could operate to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. In order that there be such assurances, the Applicants have agreed to subject individual site plans to review by local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation. In the event that a future tenant is not able to provide required assurances, the use can and should be prohibited, and can be prohibited by regulatory agencies as a condition of permits issued to the Applicants. Water quality violations presently occur in the Caloosa Canal and the C-18 Canal. The safeguards proposed by Applicants reasonably assure that the implementation of the proposed water management system will not exacerbate or cotribute to these violations. There is approximately an 11-square-mile area which drains into the Caloosa Canal through the outfall at the southeast corner of the PBPC site. The PBPC site constitutes approximately two square miles of this area. The remaining nine square miles are located to the north and west of the PBPC site. These off-site areas are undeveloped and have an ecology very similar to the presently undeveloped PBPC site. The evidence would not establish a finding that development of these off-site parcels together with development of the PBPC site would cumulatively result in water quality violations of surface or ground waters. The Applicants will be required to obtain permits to construct a wastewater treatment facility on the PBPC site. Whether any proposed wastewater treatment system will meet the standards of regulatory agencies would appropriately be considered in later proceedings. Similarly, individual tenants will, in some cases, be required to operate wastewater treatment systems that pretreat industrial waste before it is introduced into the system-wide wastewater treatment system or before it is otherwise removed from the site. These systems would also be subject to future permitting proceedings. Some of the potential activities that could be carried on by tenants at the PBPC involve the use of volatile organic compounds and other hazardous toxic substances. If proper techniques are not followed for the handling of such substances, or if some accident occurs, the substances could be introduced into the surface and ground waters. Review of each individual site plan and the establishing of systems for properly handling toxic substances can reduce the possibility of incidents occurring. Human frailties existing as they do, however, it is not unlikely that such an incident will occur. If such an incident occurs, it is vitally important that the contamination of surface or ground water be quickly detected and that steps be taken to remove the contaminant. The establishing of proper monitoring systems can reasonably assure that the contamination is identified. Techniques do exist for removing contaminants from surface and ground waters. Since individual tenants and site plans have not yet been established, it is not possible to make any finding as to whether any individual tenant or site plan might operate in such a manner as to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. It is therefore appropriate that individual tenants and site plans be subjected to further review by appropriate regulatory agencies before they are permitted to operate on the PBPC site. The Applicants have agreed to such a review process. Since surface water flows into the Caloosa Canal can be controlled through the outfall structure at the southeast corner of the PBPC site, it appears practical to isolate any contaminant that might enter the surface water and to remove it. Groundwater flows in the aquifer lying below the PBPC site are very slow--less than one-tenth of one foot per day. Given such flow rates, it is likely that any contaminants that enter the groundwater can be detected and effectively removed. Even given the implementation of the best procedures for handling toxic substances, the best monitoring program for detecting accidental releases of the substances, and the best systems for removing the substances from surface and ground waters, there is some possibility that an accident could occur, that a contaminant would not be detected, and that violations of the Department's water quality standards could occur as a result in the Caloosa Canal or in the groundwater which underlies the Caloosa development and provides drinking water to residents there. The result of such an incident could have very serious impacts. The introduction of toxic substances into the surface waters could cause a substantial damage as far downstream as the Loxahatchee River Basin. Contamination of the groundwater could result in a loss of water supply to residents or in serious public health consequences. While such possibilities exist, they appear unlikely given the safeguards that have been proposed for PBPC. The Applicants do not propose to undertake any dredging or filling activities in any navigable waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing a permit to Caleffe Investment, Ltd., Worthington Enterprises, Inc., to conduct the dredging and filling activities proposed by the Applicants. To ensure that state water quality standards will not be violated, the conditions cited in the Department's Intent to Issue notice dated October 22, 1982, should be made a part of the permit. In addition, the following conditions should be made a part of the permit: All individual site plans within PBPC should be subject to the Department's permitting processes in accordance with Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and other provisions of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as may apply. The Applicants should be required to post bond in a sufficient amount to assure proper implementation and operation of monitoring systems for individual sites and to assure that adequate funds are available to remove and properly treat contaminants that might enter surface or ground waters as a result of accidents. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 19th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Terry E. Lewis, Esquire James Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alan J. Ciklin, Esquire Boose & Ciklin 8th Floor - The Concourse 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Tracy Sharpe, Esquire Farish, Farish & Romani 316 First Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief Administrative Code Bureau Department of State The Capitol, Suite 1802 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carroll Webb, Esquire Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
