The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should modify the conditions of permits held by the Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., d/b/a Deep Lagoon Marina (Applicant), to allow Applicant to construct and operate a boat travel lift in a new location at the marina and to substitute a 60-foot wide flushing channel required by the prior permits with two-48 inches box culverts.
Findings Of Fact Applicant owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina (the Marina). The Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. The Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. The Marina is on Deep Lagoon, a Class III surface water body less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove- lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns at least the uplands and claims ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals. The parties have stipulated that ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals is not being litigated or decided in this proceeding and that, subject to the issue's being decided adverse to the Applicant in other proceedings, sufficient ownership is presumed for purposes of this proceeding. From north to south, the Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Petitioner, Brenda Sheridan, resides at 842 Cal Cove Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, which is on the shores of the Caloosahatchee River at Deep Lagoon, just across the south canal from the Marina. Intervenor, Save the Manatee Club (STMC), is a non- profit Florida corporation with approximately 40,000 members. The organization's stated purpose includes protecting the manatee and its habitat through public awareness efforts, research support and advocacy, which activities benefit manatees, STMC, and its members. The Florida Legislature has recognized STMC's substantial interest in manatee protection by designating it a member of the manatee protection committee provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act at paragraph 370.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and by requiring the state to solicit recommendations from STMC regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies, at Section 370.12(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Numerous members of STMC reside within Lee County, where they observe, study, photograph, and actively attempt to protect manatees from collisions with watercraft. These efforts benefit manatees and provide STMC's members with educational and recreational benefits in the waters of Lee County that would be affected by the proposed activity. STMC has expended substantial resources in advocating increased legal protection of manatees in Lee County, including additional boat speed regulations on the Caloosahatchee River. STMC has also constributed funds for the rescue and rehabilitation of manatees exposed to red tide in Lee County waters. Injury, mortality, and loss of important habitat would produce significant, adverse impacts to the manatee, thereby diminishing the ability of STMC's members to observe, study, and enjoy manatees in waters that would be affected by the proposed activity and frustrating STMC's efforts to preserve and protect manatees in Lee County. Permit History On December 9, 1986,, Applicant's predecessor in title applied to DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), for a dredge and fill permit to rehabilitate the 61 existing wet slips at the Marina and add 113 new wet slips. Because Deep Lagoon violated Class III water quality standards, and there was concern for the West Indian manatee, a listed endangered species which uses the waters in and around Deep Lagoon, DER placed conditions on the permit and gave notice of intent to grant the permit, with conditions, on July 26, 1988. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the permit, and formal administrative proceedings were conducted, culminating in a final order on August 24, 1989, approving the permit, with additional conditions, and certifying under the federal Clean Water Act that state water quality standards were met because there would be a net improvement in water quality of the poorly-flushed canals. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 11 F.A.L.R. 4710 (DER 1989). Wetland Resource Permit 361279929, incorporating all of the conditions, was issued on September 22, 1989, for construction and operation of the project for five years (the 1989 Permit). Petitioner and the others appealed the final order. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the 1989 Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DER's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following proceedings on remand, DER entered Final Order on Remand on April 10, 1992, which revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341, as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 14 F.A.L.R. 2187 (DER 1992). The 1989 Permit expired on September 22, 1994, but Environmental Resource Permit 362504599 was issued on October 9, 1995, essentially extending the 1989 Permit conditions for ten years, to October 9, 2005. Minor modifications were approved on November 17, 1995, March 26, 1997, and April 15, 1997. Environmental Resource Permit 362504599, with all conditions and subsequent modifications, is referred to as the 1995 Permit. Permit Conditions In general, the 1995 Permit authorizes the owner of the Marina: to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The 1995 Permit authorized activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposed several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among them, Specific Condition 5 stated in pertinent part: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addressed the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provided in pertinent part: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. Specific Condition 11 added: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 required the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibited live-aboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 added various manatee-protection provisions. Applicant's DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Specific Condition 5 of the 1995 Permit, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter described the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assured that Applicant's contractor would use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advised that the contractor would unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter stated that the dredging would "be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the 1995 Permit, and would be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [1995 Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divided the dredging into two areas. (For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals and then replace these materials with clean backfill material, as already authorized in the 1995 Permit.) For 4.84 acres, which ran through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated its determination that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement to obtain an ERP. The letter warned that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter added that DEP could revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provided a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Petitioner challenged the exempt status of the maintenance dredging, and STMC intervened in support of the challenge, which was referred to DOAH and given DOAH Case No. 98-3901. But Applicant's contractor proceeded during the pendency of the challenges and completed the maintenance dredging in the three canals. (Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the 1995 Permit.) On November 5, 1998, DEP gave notice of intent to issue the ERP for the surface water management system and certify compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code, Section 1341. Petitioner filed a challenge on December 8, 1998, and the matter was referred to DOAH, where it was given DOAH Case No. 98-5409. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the 1989 Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification, consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were pending when Applicant sought the modifications to the conditions of the 1995 Permit which are the subject of this case (DOAH Case No. 99- 2234). DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were consolidated and heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert E. Meale on February 11 and May 3-4, 1999. On November 24, 1999, ALJ Meale entered a Recommended Order recommending a final order revoking DEP's determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409. The recommendation to deny the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409 was based on findings and conclusions: (1) that Applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed surface water management system would result in a "net improvement" in water quality; and (2) that the direct and secondary impacts of the construction and operation of the system would adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Water Quality As indicated in relating the permitting history of this site, water quality in the waters of the Marina has been poor. See Findings 10 and 12, supra. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one- day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. In this case, the parties stipulated that the waters of Deep Lagoon and the Marina are Class III marine waters that do not meet Florida water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria. They also stipulated that there were violations in 1987 for oil and greases (20 times standard), fecal coliform (too numerous to count), lead (20 times standard), cadmium (ten times standard), mercury (1,000 times standard), biological diversity, and tributytin (150 times standard) (although DEP and Applicant do not think the 1987 data are relevant). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the north canal to be 183 hours (tidal prism method), 90.5 hours (current velocity), and 50 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the main basin to be 208 hours (tidal prism method), 48 hours (current velocity), and 154 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Manatees The parties stipulated that Lee County is a heavy use area for the West Indian Manatee and that manatees use the water south of Deep Lagoon and the Caloosahatchee River on a year-round basis. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. It is clear that manatees frequent Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the north canal. There are seagrass beds there to serve as a food source, and freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges in that area. The evidence in this case includes testimony and numerous photographs of manatees not only in that vicinity but up to 200 feet into the north canal. While there are no seagrass beds in the north canal itself, freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges into the north canal all along the length of mangrove fringe on the north shore of the canal. It is not clear how much further up the north canal manatees go, but they probably frequently continue further into the north canal since one primary attraction of the north canal for manatees at this time is its relative quiet and peacefulness. Manatees also make some use of the central and south canals of the Marina, but they seem to prefer the north canal for its peacefulness and for the fresh water supply from the Iona Drainage District ditch. The Florida Department of Transportation recently has constructed a retention pond for MacGregor Boulevard in the vicinity of the Marina which will discharge fresh water into the main basin of the central canal. This may make the central canal more attractive to manatees than it is at this time, notwithstanding the relatively high level of boating-related activity there. New Boat Travel Lift The Marina's existing boat travel lift is located in the main basin of the central canal. There also are the remnants of an older travel lift operation at the western end of the central peninsula extending into Deep Lagoon. Applicant proposes to construct and use a new boat travel lift at the eastern terminus of the north canal. The proposed location of the new travel lift will be closer to the approved location of a new service center building. A travel lift essentially consists of a heavy-duty, U-shaped frame which is built on wheels and motorized for mobility. Heavy-duty straps are suspended from the frame using pulley systems. The travel lift is driven out over water on specially-built tracks so the straps can be placed underneath large vessels (over 40 feet) and tightened using the pulleys to secure the vessels; the travel lift is then driven off the tracks, and the vessels are transported to a dry storage or repair location, where the vessels are lowered, and the straps are removed. The process essentially is reversed to return vessels to the water. The direct impact of construction of the new boat travel lift involves removal of some mangroves existing at the terminus of the north canal and sinking pilings to support the tracks extending into the water on which the travel lift operates. Applicant proposes to mitigate the mangrove impacts by filling areas on either side of the proposed travel lift to just above the mean-high waterline and planting the areas with mangroves. Not only will this be a net increase the amount of mangrove fringe, the decrease in water depth at the east end of the north canal also will improve flushing of the canal to some extent. Applicant also proposes to remove exotic plants all along the shoreline of the Marina's canals for the life of the Marina. It is the Marina's intent to use the travel lift only for vessels too large to be lifted by forklifts operated at the main basin of the central canal. The Marina is purchasing new, larger (37,000 pound) forklifts (compared to the 10,000 pound forklifts currently in use), which can lift vessels up to approximately 42 feet long. Use of the larger forklifts will reduce the use of the travel lift. At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use to the travel lift to vessels too large to be lifted by the new forklifts. New Specific Condition 33 in the proposed permit modifications provides: "Launching of vessels from the dry storage facilities shall be prohibited in the north canal at the site." New Specific Condition 34 in the proposed permit modifications provides in part: "Launching and retrieval of vessels in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels stored/moored at the marina facility that require boat repair." New Specific Condition 34 also would require Applicant to maintain logs for the travel lift and boat repairs to allow DEP to verify compliance by comparing the two logs. There was some disagreement as to the intent of the quoted proposed new specific conditions. A DEP witness thought it meant that the Marina only could use the travel lift for repair of vessels permanently moored at the Marina, but the Marina's representative did not think the language would prohibit the repair of other vessels as well. Assuming that vessels not permanently moored at the Marina will be accepted for repairs, and that only vessels too large for the new forklifts will use the new travel lift, it can be anticipated that an average of 6-10 vessels a week will use the travel lift for retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water. To some extent, use of the travel lift is limited by the average time it takes to use the lift. But considering only those limitations, it is possible use the lift as many as 19 times in a day in an emergency--e.g., when a hurricane is approaching, and the Marina is trying to get as many boats out of the water as possible. On average, use of the travel lift also will be limited by market conditions and the capacity of the new service center to store and repair large vessels. More than half of the average use of 6-10 vessels a week probably will occur on Fridays (for repairs before peak weekend boating) and Mondays (for repairs after the weekend peak). At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use of the new travel lift. But at final hearing, the Marina expressed its willingness to accept a limit of an average of ten vessels a week. (Counting retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water for each vessel, the agreed limit would be an average of 20 uses of the travel lift a week). The Marina was not willing to accept a daily limit. Secondary impacts from such a limited use of the proposed new travel lift on water quality and manatees are difficult to assess precisely. The travel lift itself uses some form of lubrication, but only the straps enter the water during operation. Historically, vessels have been pressure-washed and had their bilges and engines flushed while on the existing travel lift in the main basin of the central canal at the Marina, and wash-water from these operations has entered the main basin at that location. Wash-water from such operations at the proposed new travel lift location would enter the north canal, subject to the construction and operation of an adequate surface water management system, as required by Specific Condition 5.C. of the 1995 Permit. Cf. DOAH Case No. 98-5409, supra. It is possible that vessels in need of repair entering the north canal and proceeding to the proposed new travel lift location (whether under power or being towed) could leak oil or gasoline. Both contaminants would rise to the surface. Leaked gasoline and the more volatile components of oil could be expected to evaporate relatively quickly; the residue of oil contamination would be persistent. Such spills would affect water quality and could affect manatees drinking fresher water from the surface of the north canal. There was no evidence from which to predict or quantify such impacts. It would be possible for manatees to be injured by vessels using the proposed new travel lift. Although such vessels would be traveling at low speed (1-2 mile per hour), maneuvering such large vessels in close quarters like the north canal sometimes is accomplished by intermittent bursts of high engine and propeller speeds, both in forward and reverse gears. Such operations could cause a vessel to lurch in the direction of a manatee; if done in reverse gear, a manatee could be sucked into the speeding propellers. It also is possible for a manatee to be crushed against the bottom or against a structure of the Marina facility during such operations. Despite the possibility of injury to manatees from use of the new proposed travel lift, it is clear that most manatee injuries and deaths from boat collisions occur as a result of propeller injuries from boats being operated at high-speed. Manatees are known to frequent and safely use marinas where large vessels operate at low speed. The risk of danger to manatees from use of the proposed new travel lift can be characterized as being minimal if not speculative, especially in view of the manatee protections in Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. Initially, DEP misunderstood the nature of the proposed new travel lift, thinking it would greatly increase boat traffic in the north canal. When the minor impact of the project was explained, DEP's concerns were allayed. Greater risk of danger to manatees would occur from the addition of wet slips in the north canal, but those impacts are not secondary to the travel lift proposal; they are completely separate impacts that are governed by the pre-existing 1995 Permit. Petitioner and Intervenor were critical of the absence of a specific condition for the daily logs to be presented to DEP for inspection on a regular basis. See Finding 42, supra. They contended that absence of such a requirement would compromise compliance enforcement. But DEP inspection of the logs at times of its own choosing could be just as effective. The key to enforcement is having an enforceable specific condition limiting use of the travel lift. Petitioner and Intervenor also were critical of using a simple weekly average to limit use of the new travel lift. They correctly argue that the time over which the weekly average would be computed must be designated for such a use limitation to be enforceable. They also contend that there should be a daily limit. Assuming a weekly average limitation of ten, a daily limit of ten would not be unreasonable if it allowed leeway to exceed the daily limit in cases of emergencies such as approaching hurricanes. Replacing Flushing Channel with Culverts Applicant's proposal to replace the 60 foot by 4.5 foot-deep flushing channel with two 48-inch culverts is motivated by practical considerations. Applicant essentially wishes to avoid the expense of constructing the channel required under the 1995 Permit and having to bridge the channel to make use of the peninsula between the central and north canals. Part of the Marina's initial motivation for the channel was to expand operations and allow access to the north canal from the main basin. Part of the channel was to have been used by the Marina as a new forklift area with access to boat storage areas on both sides of the channel. In the 1989 Permit, it was stated that the channel was "to act as a sediment sump." It was not until the 1995 Permit that the channel was said to serve to "improve flushing." Most of the "net improvement" of water quality at the Marina was to come from proposed contamination dredging of the canals (and backfilling with clean sand), removal of contaminated soil from Marina uplands, installation of a redesigned boat-wash area, and installation of an adequate surface water management system. Most flushing benefits were anticipated to come from making the canals shallower by back-filling after dredging. Flushing from the channel was presented as "frosting" on the "net improvement cake." The hydrographic evidence was that the channel, in conjunction with back-filling the Marina's canals, would indeed increase flushing of the Marina's canals to some extent. Looking at the main basin only, the channel would improve flushing by up to 27 percent. But looking at the Marina's canals overall, the channel would only increase flushing by up to 0.6 percent. By comparison, the hydrographic evidence was that the proposed flushing culverts also would contribute to increased flushing but by a smaller amount. Looking at the main basin only, the proposed flushing culverts would improve flushing by up to 4 percent. Looking at the Marina's canals overall, the proposed flushing canal would only increase flushing by up to 0.2 percent. Petitioner and Intervenor question the reliability of Applicant's calculations of flushing times without more up-to- date data on the depths of the canals after contamination and maintenance dredging. But the evidence was that differences in the starting depths would not have a significant effect on the relative changes in flushing times from the channel versus the culverts; the differences would be approximately proportional regardless of the starting depths. In addition, the depths assumed in Applicant's calculations are based on the 1987 data and the requirements of the 1995 Permit. Compliance with the requirements of maintenance dredging and the 1995 Permit can be enforced, if necessary, in other proceedings. See, e.g., DOAH Case No. 98-3901, as to maintenance dredging. Applicant's calculations on flushing times do not account for the possibility of an additional benefit from the proposed flushing culverts. Applicant proposes to locate the culvert inverts at a depth of 6 feet. If a greater salinity gradient exists at that depth, the culverts would have a relative advantage over a 4.5 foot-deep channel in terms of flushing and the exchange of more oxygenated water between the north canal and the main basin. The existence of such a salinity gradient is suggested by data collected in 1997. But salinity gradients are not constant, and water samples were collected only during one 24- hour period in May 1997 and another 24-hour period in September 1997. In addition, no data has been collected after the maintenance and contamination dredging. The sampling in this case was too limited to give reasonable assurance that the proposed flushing culverts would have advantages over the required channel in promoting of flushing. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that changing the open channel to closed culverts would decrease the benefit of oxygen exchange in an open-channel system. It is true that, generally, more oxygen would be introduced in an open system. But the evidence was that none of the "net improvement" to water quality from the specific conditions to the 1995 Permit was anticipated to derive from increases in dissolved oxygen from oxygen exchange in the channel. Conversely, Applicant contended that the proposed culverts would decrease the chances of contamination from the uplands, as compared to an open channel. But there was no specific evidence to support or quantify this speculative benefit. In addition, required improvements in surface water management at the Marina would reduce any such benefits from the culverts. See, Specific Condition 5.B. and DOAH Case No. 98-5409. Approximately 60 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed from the north canal to accommodate a flushing channel. In contrast, only approximately 8 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed culverts. But there was no evidence as to how removing less of the mangrove fringe would improve flushing or water quality. In addition, Specific Condition 12 of the 1995 Permit required replacement of the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. There was no evidence that installation of flushing culverts instead of the flushing channel required under the 1995 Permit would have any impact on manatees.
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: granting Applicant's proposed modifications to the 1995 Permit, with the following additional modifications: No use of the new travel lift for boats less than 40 foot in length except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Limitation on use of travel lift to a 28- day rolling average of ten vessels a week, except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Prohibition against pressure-washing and flushing bilges and engines of vessels on the new travel lift except in the boat wash area to be constructed and operated in accordance with Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. A requirement to report and promptly clean-up any spills of oil or gasoline in the north canal related to operation of the new travel lift. waiving certification as a precondition to federal permitting under 33 United States Code, Section 1341. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: T. Elaine Holmes, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman, Esquire Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a permit to construct a wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Project Celebrity is seeking a DER permit to construct a 0.065 million gallon per day wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. The sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent disposal system, consisting of a spray irrigation system, are to be located on the southern end of the site, away from Orange Lake. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Some underground pipes for a sewage collection system were installed at the site without an appropriate DER permit. Celebrity stopped the installation upon notice from DER that a permit was required for such installation. The permit needed for the installation of the collection system pipes was not the permit for the sewage treatment project which is being considered in this proceeding. Celebrity was penalized for its collection system violation, which was resolved with a consent order. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) The STP is an extended aeration plant. It is designed to meet secondary treatment standards (90% removal of BOD and suspended solids from raw sewage) and basic disinfection. This type of treatment plant is very reliable. All mechanical components have a 100% backup so if a pump or blower fails, another is available to operate. The STP is designed to be capable of treating the flow from this RV park. Additionally, the facility has a holding pond for treated sewage effluent that can store five days of flow. Furthermore, because the RV park is a transient facility, it is possible in an emergency to shut down the entire plant and have people leave. By its nature, this is much more convenient in an RV park that in a residential or commercial neighborhood. The holding pond is to be lined with a 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, so there should be no leakage to the ground or groundwater even if there is an accident in the STP causing release of untreated sewage into the holding pond. The STP is to be maintained five days a week and must be attended for three nonconsecutive visits a week by a Class D certified plant operator. The amount of dissolved/undissolved heavy metals in the effluent is typically not a problem in domestic sewage effluent such as from the proposed RV park. To the extent that trace amounts of metals will exist, the STP will remove some heavy metals from the effluent during the treatment process and entrain them in the sludge (which will be taken to appropriately licensed landfill). There is no possibility of effluent leaking or discharging from the plant to directly discharge to Orange Lake, even if the STP completely malfunctions. Although the proposed STP is not a highly sophisticated plant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the STP will comply with DER's requirements for secondary treatment and basic disinfection and proper operation. Effluent Disposal System (Spray Irrigation System) Phase I of the effluent disposal system (spray irrigation system) is 3.66 acres in size, with an additional 1.7 acres designated if Phase II is implemented. Approval under this permit authorizes only the 3.66 acres on Phase I. Numerous separate sprinkler heads will spray the treated effluent on the field. The heads can be separately controlled and shut down. The sprayfield is sited on the southwestern corner of the 75-acre site and is separated hydrologically from the Orange Lake drainage basin by the "break" referred to in Paragraph 4 above. Therefore, surface water drainage in the area of the sprayfield drains away from the lake and does not connect back to the lake. The permitted loading rate is 1.7 inches per week, or approximately 24,000 gallons per day at full capacity. This amount corresponds to only approximately 170% of natural rainfall, but is more evenly distributed and controlled. After uptake of nutrients by green plants and evaporation (evapo- transpiration), the average amount of treated effluent that will percolate below the "uptake zone" to the surficial aquifer (to the extent that such exists on the site) is 0.3 to 0.4 inches per week. The surficial water table in the area of the sprayfield generally flows to the north toward the lake, although the flow is not immediately direct toward the lake. The Floridan Aquifer (which is beneath the intermittent surficial water table) in the area of the sprayfield generally flows away from the lake to the south and southeast. There are four sinkholes on the 75-acre site, although none of these four sinkholes have been identified on the 3.66-acre sprayfield. The four sinkholes on the 75-acre site and the majority of sinkholes in the area are "subsidence sinkholes." These sinkholes do not result in an open void down to the limerock after the collapse forming the sinkhole, but instead continue to have unconsolidated material above the limerock, even though a depression forms on the surface. One of the sinkholes has standing water within it and could possibly represent a connection with the lake water table or the Floridan Aquifer, but that sinkhole is separated hydrologically from the sprayfield site by the "break" across the property. There will generally be a slight increase in hydrologic conductivity through a subsidence sinkhole, since the unconsolidated material on the surface remains and is loosened. In some cases there may be even less hydrologic transmissivity due to a "jamming up" of the unconsolidated material, and in some cases there may be an increase in transmissivity when the unconsolidated material falls into an even less consolidated state. A "lineament" may exist on the 75-acre site. A lineament is a fracture zone, which indicates an increase in ground water transmissivity, resulting in an increase in solution of limestone and therefore indicating a more likely location for sinkhole formation. If a sinkhole develops within the sprayfield and if the sinkhole results in an increased area of ground water transmissivity, it could be a conduit for treated effluent to reach the surficial aquifer or Floridan Aquifer. Sinkholes which may form on the site are subject to being repaired with impervious material which prevents their becoming routes of contamination to the aquifer. In addition, the loading rate of any single sinkhole that forms within the spray irrigation field is so light and so easily shut down that there is a high confidence rate that no new sinkhole will act as a conduit for even the small immediate discharge over the area of the new sink to reach the Floridan Aquifer. A spray irrigation effluent disposal system is appropriate for this area which is subject to sinkhole formation. Spray irrigation allows dispersal of the effluent over a large area as opposed to a percolation pond which concentrates in the percolation area and therefore increases the chance of sinkhole formation and the chance of larger amounts of effluent reaching the Floridan Aquifer if all the intervening safeguards should fail simultaneously. In addition, the repair of any sinkhole forming within the sprayfield is simplified by the ability to simply shut off the sprinkler head or heads affecting that sinkhole while repair is being effected. Permit conditions further limit excessive effluent application rates by limiting the amount of flow, prohibiting application during storm events, and requiring monitoring of the flow. Spray irrigation is a common method of effluent disposal which generally has fewer problems than use of percolation ponds. No evidence has been presented that discharge from the sprayfield will cause violations of groundwater quality standards or violations of surface water quality standards, including the Outstanding Florida Water requirements in Orange Lake. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed effluent disposal system will not violate DER water quality standards or other applicable DER rules. Standing Petitioner Suto could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if it causes pollution to Orange Lake since she uses the lake for nature photography. Additionally, she resides to the southeast of the proposed sprayfield and has concerns over contaminated ground water reaching her property and affecting her drinking water. Petitioner Riley could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if there is pollution to the Floridan Aquifer since she lives southeast of the proposed facility and has two drinking water wells on this property. Additionally, Petitioner Riley is a user of Orange Lake and therefore could be substantially affected by the proposed facility if it impacts the lake. Petitioner Solomon could be substantially affected by the proposed project if the project impacts Orange Lake since Mr. Solomon earns his living on the lake as a commercial fisherman and bass fishing guide.
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 granting to Celebrity Resorts, Inc., a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility and spray irrigation disposal system subject to the conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2722 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(1); 5(2); 6(4); 7(5&6); 8- 12(7-11); 13(12); 14(13); 15(14); 16(15&16); 17(17); 18(18); 19-21(20-22); and 22-27(26-31). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 28 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4-6(1-3); 7-13(5-11); 14(12); 15-17(13-15); 18(17); 19(18); 20-26(19-25); 27-32(26-31); and 33-35(32- 34). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Delcie J. Suto, Pro Se 2400 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Carol B. Riley, Pro Se 2250 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Crawford Solomon, Pro Se 1303 N.W. 186th Place Citra, FL 32113 Karen English 3680 West Highway 318 Citra, FL 32113 Marilyn Nehring P. O. Box 481 Orange Lake, FL 32112 John Monsees 2400 NW 165 Street Citra, FL 32113 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District) should grant the application of the Misty Creek Country Club, Inc. (the Club), to modify MSSW Permit No. 400037.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioners are owners of property adjacent to Lake No. 7 of the Misty Creek Country Club in a development called The Preserves at Misty Creek-- specifically, lot 113 (Robert and Lee Werner), lot 114 (Charles and Rosemary Biondolillo), lots 115 and 115A (Ignatius and Judith Bertola), lots 117 and 117A (Don and Halina Bogdanske), lots 118 and 118A (Louis and Betty Mitchell), lots 119 and 119A (George and Dorothy Holly), lots 120 and 120A (John and Maureen Higgins), and lot 121 (William and June Spence). Respondent, the Misty Creek Country Club (the Club), operates a golf course and country club located at The Preserves at Misty Creek under a 99-year lease with Gator Creek Lands, the developer of The Preserves at Misty Creek. Existing System Design and Application for Permit Modification In 1985, Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District, issued a surface water management permit for development of a 730-acre residential development and golf course. The District subsequently issued to the Club operation phase authorization for the surface water management system associated with the golf course portion of the development in March of 1992. Under the original permit, Lake No. 7 was part of the overall stormwater management system for the golf course. The lake is approximately seven and half to eight acres in size and is part of a total drainage basin of approximately twenty-eight acres. As originally designed, Lake No. 7 is a detention with filtration system. An underdrain in the side of the bank provides water quality treatment, filtering out oils and greases, fertilizers and other contaminants. A control elevation of 31.02 was established for Lake No. 7 through construction of a weir. Between elevation 31.00 and 31.02, water discharges through the underdrain system providing water quality treatment. Above elevation 31.02, water flows over the control structure into Lake No. 6, and ultimately discharges to Cow Pen Slough, which is Class III waters of the state. The Club presently has a water use permit from the District which allows withdrawal of groundwater for irrigation of the golf course. Groundwater is stored in Lake No. 7 prior to use for irrigation when needed to augment water in the lake. Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit required the Club to investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed or reuse water in lieu of groundwater for irrigation purposes at the golf course. As a result of the investigation required by Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit, the Club filed an application with the District to modify its surface water management permit to allow for the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Under that application, there would have been no significant modifications to the stormwater management system. Reuse water would have replaced groundwater as a source for augmenting water in the lake when needed for irrigation. An eight-inch service line would convey the reuse water to Lake 7, and a float valve would control the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. When water levels in the lake fell below elevation 30.5', the float valve would open the effluent line to allow introduction of reuse water into the lake; when the water elevation in the lake reached 31.0', the float valve would shut off the flow of water. There would be gate valves on either side of the structure that could be manually closed, if necessary, to stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if the float valve malfunctioned. Club personnel would have access to the gate valves and could manually stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if necessary. On August 9, 1995, just days prior to the final hearing in this matter, the Club proposed to modify its application to make certain structural changes in the design of the surface water management system. Specifically, the Club proposed to plug the window in the weir, raise the elevation of the weir or control structure to elevation 33.6, raise the elevation of the berm along the north end of Lake No. 7 adjacent to the weir to elevation 33.6, and plug the underdrain. The purpose of the proposed modifications to the design of the system was to assure that no discharge from Lake No. 7 would occur up to and including the 100-year storm event. A 100-year storm event is equal to 10 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. Source and Quality of Reuse Water The Club also entered into an agreement with Sarasota County to accept reuse water from the county's new Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility. That agreement specifies the terms under which the Club will accept reuse water from the County. The County's Bee Ridge facility is presently under construction and is not yet operating. As permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility will use a Bardenpho waste treatment system which is a licensed process to provide advanced waste treatment. The construction permit establishes effluent limits for the facility that are comparable to a level of treatment known as advanced secondary treatment, but the County Commission for Sarasota County has instructed the County staff to operate the Bee Ridge facility as an advanced waste treatment plant. Advanced waste treatment is defined by the quality of the effluent produced. For advanced waste treatment, the effluent may not exceed 5 milligrams/Liter of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or total suspended solids (TSS), 3 milligrams/Liter of total nitrogen, or 1 milligram/Liter of total phosphorus. It also requires high level disinfection. Advanced secondary treatment requires the same level of treatment for TSS but the limit for nitrates is 10 milligrams/Liter. High level disinfection is also required for advanced secondary treatment. In Florida, reuse systems require a minimum of advanced secondary treatment. High level disinfection is the level of treatment that generally is accepted as being a reasonable level of treatment. The Bee Ridge permit issued to Sarasota County identifies the Club as one of the recipients of reuse water for irrigation. Condition Number 21 of that permit provides that the use of golf course ponds to store reuse water is not authorized under the County's permit until issuance of a separate permit or modification of the County's permit. Although the District did not require Misty Creek to submit any information about the modification of the County's permit, there was no basis for assuming that the County permit could not be modified. To the contrary, the permit provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Under the late modification to the Club's application, the reuse water transmission line and float valve system, with backup manual gate valve system, is unchanged. So are the water elevations at which the float valve system will automatically introduce reuse water into Lake 7 and shut off. Sarasota County already has constructed the water transmission system that would deliver reuse water to the Club. At the request of the District, the Club provided copies of the drawings of the float valve structure as permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District did not require certified drawings of that structure. But the District will require the Club to provide as-built drawings following completion of construction prior to the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Property Ownership Each of the Petitioners owns a residential lot adjacent to Lake No. 7. At the time of the Petitioners' purchase of the individual residential lots, the Club leased certain property immediately west of Lake No. 7 from the developer of The Preserve at Misty Creek. The leased premises included a piece of land extending into the lake known as the 19th green. As a result of negotiations between the Club and the developer, it was determined that the 19th green would be removed and the land between the approximate top of bank of Lake No. 7 and the private residential lots would be released from the Club's lease. The developer subsequently conveyed the property that had been released from the Club's lease to the individual lot owners (the "A" parcels listed in Finding 1). At the time of the conveyance of the additional parcels, the attorney for the developer prepared deeds for each individual parcel with a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots to which they were being added. While the Club's application for modification of its surface water management permit was being processed by the District, counsel for Petitioners provided the District with copies of the individual deeds and questioned whether the Club had ownership or control of the land which was the subject of the application sufficient to meet the District's permitting requirements. In response to a request for information regarding the ownership of the property that was the subject of the application, the Club submitted to the District a topographical survey prepared by Mr. Steven Burkholder, a registered professional land surveyor with AM Engineering. The topographical survey depicted: the elevation of the water in the Lake No. 7 on the day that the survey was conducted, labeled "approximate water's edge"; the elevation of the "top of bank"; and the easternmost line of private ownership by Petitioners. Mr. Burkholder determined the line of private property ownership by reproducing a boundary survey attached to the individual deeds conveying the additional parcels to the Petitioners. He testified that he was confident that the topographical survey he prepared accurately represented the most easterly boundary of the Petitioners' ownership. The elevation of the line of private ownership as depicted on the survey prepared by Mr. Burkholder ranges from a low of approximately 34.5 to 35.2. The elevation of the line labeled "top of bank" ranges from a high of 35.6 to a low of 34.4. The elevation of the water in Lake No. 7 would be controlled by the elevation of the modified control structure which is proposed to be set at elevation 33.6. After modification of the surface water management system to retain the 100-year storm event, at no time would water levels in the lake rise above the existing elevation of the "top of bank." The Petitioners testified that they believed that they owned to the water's edge or edge of the lake, but Mr. Burkholder testified that a property boundary could not be determined based on an elevation depicting the water's edge because that line would change as the level of the water rose and fell. The Petitioners also presented evidence that the developer's attorney made representations to them that their ownership extended to the "approximate high water line." But there appears to be no such thing as an "approximate high water line" in surveying terms. Where the boundary of a lake is depicted on a survey it generally is depicted from top of bank to top of bank. In any event, the legal descriptions of the parcels conveyed to the Petitioners were not based on a reference to either a water line or the water's edge or the lake at all. Instead, the legal descriptions were based solely on a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots. Notwithstanding some contrary evidence, if the Petitioners owned to the water's edge, such ownership would require the Petitioners to consent to or join in the amended application for the modification of the Club's surface water management permit. Information regarding the ownership or control and the legal availability of the receiving water system is required as part of the contents of an application under Rule 40D-4.101(2)(d)6. and 7., Florida Administrative Code. The amended application requires the ability to "spread" Lake 7 in the direction of the Petitioners' property. If the Petitioners own the property on which the Club intends to "spread" Lake 7 in order to make the amended application work, the Petitioners must consent or join. The issue of the legal ownership and control of the Petitioners and the Club currently is in litigation in state circuit court. If the state circuit court determines that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank," consideration would have to be given to modifying any permit issued to the Club to insure that the designed "spread" of Lake 7 in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event does not encroach on the Petitioners' property. District Permit Requirements The District has never before processed an application for a surface water management permit allowing commingling of storm water and reuse water. The District applied Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, in reviewing the Club's permit application. There are no specific provisions in Rule 40D-4 or the District's Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications that address the commingling of stormwater and reuse water; on the other hand, no rules of the District prohibit the introduction of other types of water into a stormwater treatment pond so long as the requirements of Rule 40D-4 are met. The District has the authority to allow stormwater and reuse water to be commingled. Section 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, contains the conditions for issuance of a surface water management permit. Permitting Criteria In order to obtain a surface water management permit to commingle stormwater and reuse water in Lake 7, the Club must provide reasonable assurances that the proposed modifications to its existing system will provide adequate flood control and drainage; not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands; not result in a violation of surface water quality standards; not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows; not diminish the capability of the lake to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code; not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife or other natural resources; be effectively operated and maintained; not adversely affect public health and safety; be consistent with other public agency's requirements; not otherwise be harmful to water resources of the District; and not be against public policy. No surface or groundwater levels or flows have been set for this area of the District, so that permit criterion is not applicable to the Club's application. The Club's application will not impact wetlands or fish and wildlife associated with wetlands as described in F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f). There are no wetlands regulated by the District in the project site. The Club has submitted to the District an operation and maintenance plan for the modified surface water management system. The operation and maintenance plan is in compliance with the District's permitting criteria contained in Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g). The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not adversely affect the public health and safety is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The permitting criterion that a project must be consistent with the requirements of other public agencies was met by inclusion in the permit of Special Conditions Nos. 5 and 6, Limiting Condition No. 3 and Standard Condition No. 3, which require that the surface water management permit be modified if necessary to comply with modifications imposed by other public agencies. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project may not be against public policy is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with that criterion. The project will not have an adverse impact on water quality or quantity in receiving waters or adjacent lands. Under the District's regulations, the project would not be permittable if it caused flooding on property owned by other persons. Two concerns regarding off-site flooding were raised by Petitioners: first, the potential for flooding of the Petitioners' property; and, second, the potential for flooding of secondary systems connecting to Lake No. 7 such as private roads in the development. The project would violate the requirements of Section 40D-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a proposed project provide adequate flood protection and drainage, if raising the weir and berm elevation to 33.6 would cause the level of water in Lake No. 7 to move laterally up the bank and encroach on property owned by Petitioners. However, the Club has given reasonable assurances that the Petitioners own only to the "top of bank" and that raising the weir elevation to 33.6 would not cause water levels to rise above the "top of bank" of the lake. If it is determined in pending state circuit court proceedings that the Petitioners own beyond the "top of bank," any permit for the Club's project might have to be modified to avoid flooding the Petitioners' property. With respect to potential flooding of secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways, raising the elevation of water in Lake No. 7 would decrease the capacity of the storm sewers draining into the Lake. However, the proposed modifications would not increase the area of impervious surface in the drainage basin or decrease the size of the lake, and water levels in the roadways probably would not rise much higher than under present circumstances. The existing storm sewer system is only designed for a 10-year storm event, so the supplemental effect on roadway flooding from retaining a 100-year storm event in Lake No. 7 probably would be negligible. The Club gave reasonable assurances that any increase in water levels on the roadways from the proposed modifications would not be considered a significant adverse effect because it still would not affect public access. Sarasota County's land development regulations allow flooding in streets of up to 12 inches for a 100-year storm event, nine inches for a 25-year storm event, and six inches for a 10-year storm event. No portion of the proposed project area is within the 100-year floodplain. The project will not have an adverse effect on water quantity attenuation or cause flooding of the Petitioners' property or secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways. Petitioners have protested the effect that this project will have on water quality within Lake No. 7, itself. Surface water quality standards do not apply within a stormwater pond. Stormwater ponds are essentially pollution sinks intended to receive polluted runoff. Where there is no discharge from a pond, water quality treatment is irrelevant. Lake 7 is not a "water resource within the District" pursuant to Section 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, and potential impact on water quality in Lake No. 7 should not be considered. Section 40D-4.301(1)(j) limits the issues to be considered by the District to downstream water quality, water quantity, floodplain impacts, and wetlands impacts. The commingling of wastewater effluent treated to a level of advanced secondary or advanced waste treatment (reuse water) would improve water quality within a stormwater treatment pond at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Stormwater is very low quality compared to reuse water. In most respects, reuse water also will be better quality than the well water presently being used to augment the pond. It is expected to be better quality than unimpacted water in the receiving waterbody with respect to nitrogen content and only slightly worse with respect to phosphorus content. The addition of reuse water should not promote more algal growth; rather, it should reduce the likelihood of algal growth. It also should not increase the incidences of fish kills in Lake 7. Nor should it alter the nutrient concentrations in Lake 7 so as to result in an imbalance of the natural population of aquatic flora and fauna. In the draft permit originally proposed to be issued to the Club, permit conditions required that water quality be monitored at the point of discharge to waters of the state. This requirement was eliminated from the revised permit as the District determined that it was not necessary in light of the modification of the system to retain the 100-year storm event. The subject design does not account for recovery of the water quality treatment volume within a specified period of time. However, there is no such requirement in District rules when a pond entirely retains the 100-year storm event, as is the case with this project. Even if there were a discharge from the surface water management system in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event, the Club gave reasonable assurances that water quality standards in the receiving waterbody would not be violated because of the effects of dilution. This project will not cause discharges which result in any violations of applicable state water quality standards for surface waters of the state. Based on a number of factors, including the peak rate factor, the curve number and the seasonal high water elevation, the water level in Lake 7 would reach an elevation of 33.57 if a 100-year storm event occurs. This results in the retention of the 100-year storm in Lake 7. The District only considers the 100-year storm event, by itself. It does not consider other rainfall events before or after it. However, the District does presume that ponds are at their seasonal high water level when the 100-year storm event occurs and that the ground is saturated. With respect to the seasonal high water level, there was substantial conflicting testimony. The Club's consultant used a seasonal high water level of 31.0' for Lake No. 7 in his calculations. This was based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Ardaman & Associates. A seasonal high water elevation of 31.0' was also used in the original permit application in 1985. In concluding that the seasonal high water level should be 31.0, the Ardaman report relied on several assumptions, including plugging of the underdrain and overflow weir and no discharges into or pumping out of the lake. These assumptions were made to establish an historical water level. The Petitioners' consultant disputed the determination in the Ardaman report that the seasonal high for Lake No. 7 was 31 on the grounds that the report indicated groundwater levels of 32.8 on three sides of the lake. He also felt that water levels would rise in the lake over time as a result of it being, allegedly, a closed system. While he did not have an opinion as to what the appropriate seasonal high should be, he felt it would be higher than 31 but lower than 32.8. However, he did no modeling with respect to calculating a seasonal high water level and would normally rely on a geotechnical engineer, such as Ardaman & Associates, to calculate seasonal high water levels. The District generally does not receive information as extensive and detailed as that included in the Ardaman report when it reviews permit applications. Among other things, the Ardaman report indicates a gradient across Lake No. 7 which makes the determination of the seasonal high for the lake difficult. The groundwater flow gradient results from the fact that the elevation of Lake No. 6 is approximately three feet lower than the elevation in Lake No. 7. The elevation determined by Ardaman may well be conservative in that the seasonal high of 31 is above the midpoint of the gradient. Although Lake 7 will be designed as an essentially closed system, it will have inflow from rainfall, surface runoff, introduction of reuse water and groundwater inflow, and outflows by way of evapotranspiration, withdrawal for irrigation purposes, and groundwater outflows. To alleviate any concerns about the validity of the seasonal high, it would be reasonable to include a permit condition requiring the Club to monitor the water level in Lake 7 on a daily basis, using staff gauges, after modification of the control structure. If such monitoring indicated that the seasonal high water level exceeds 31.0, the District could consider options to address that situation, including reducing the level at which reuse water is introduced into the lake or requiring water quality monitoring at the point of discharge to receiving waters. Groundwater quality is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection, not by the District. The DEP permit issued to Sarasota County for disposal of reuse water at the Club golf course requires the installation of two groundwater monitoring wells, one in fairly close proximity to Lake No. 7. The Overlooked Pond There is a small retention pond northwest of Lake 7, near lot 113. Neither the Club nor the District considered the effect of the Club's late modification of its application on the retention pond northwest of Lake 7 and adjacent properties. Lake 7 and the retention pond to its northwest are connected by an equalizer pipe. As a result, water levels in the pond will be affected by water levels in Lake 7. There was no evidence as to the elevations of the banks of the retention pond. There was no evidence as to whether the modifications to the Club's application will result in flooding of properties adjacent to the pond. There was no evidence that the Club owns or controls the retention pond or the properties adjacent to it that might be affected by flooding that might result from the modifications to the Club's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the Club's amended application. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2196 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease. Accepted and incorporated. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease and from which the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7 can be determined. Accepted and incorporated. But the topographic survey, together with other evidence, does show the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that uses must be "specifically authorized" in that the lease authorizes the use of the premises for a "golf course," which is presumed to include uses inherent to the operation of a golf course that may not be further specified in the lease, such as drainage facilities, like Lake 7, and facilities for irrigation of the golf course. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Club does not pay for the maintenance of Lake 7, at least as between the Club and its lessor, which is the subject of the pertinent lease provision. (There was evidence as to a dispute between the Club and the Petitioners, or at least some of them, as to who is responsible for maintenance of land in the vicinity of the western extent of Lake 7 and the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that there are "A" parcels between lots 115 through 120 and Lake 7. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Not clear whether all of the activities listed in the second sentence are done in the entire area up to the water's edge but, otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. Rejected. The intent of the parties is not clear and is the subject of litigation in state circuit court. 17.-18. Accepted that some probably used the words "to the water's edge"; others may have said "to the lake" or "to the approximate high water line." Regardless of what they said, the legal consequences are being litigated in state circuit court. Subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. 19.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.. Last sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The evidence was sufficient to place on Exhibit M-16 the boundary lines of the "A" parcels, as depicted on the Alberti boundary survey that was attached to the individual deeds to all of the "A" parcels, in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and other topographical features depicted on Exhibit M-16. The 0.679 acre total for the "A" parcels was merely transcribed from the Alberti boundary survey (probably incorrectly, as the boundary survey seems to indicate the acreage to be 0.674, plus or minus.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, it will spread more than before the modifications, up to a maximum spread of approximately ten feet. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The Club gave reasonable assurances that the spread would be contained within its leasehold interest. However, consideration would have to be given to modifying the permit if the state circuit court determines in the pending litigation that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank." Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted. Self-evident and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. It does not prohibit it; it just does not authorize it. It provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 32.-36. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) 37. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that discharges will be "likely." (Accepted and incorporated that no discharges are expected as a result of storm events up to and including a 100-year storm event unless preceding conditions predispose the system to discharge during a 100-year storm event.) 38.-39. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As for 39., very little construction will be required for the proposed project.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First, Lake 7 will not be "maintained" at 31'; rather, when it falls below 30.5', a half inch will be added. Second, it is not clear that the Ardaman report established an "artificially low seasonal high water level." (There is a hydraulic gradient across Lake 7 from east to west, approximately. The Ardaman report assumed no flow into or out of Lake 7; it also assumed no pumpage into or out of the lake.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is based "solely" on that assumption. Accepted and incorporated that it is based on that and on other assumptions. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) Rejected as not supported by evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the impact is obvious--the water level in the pond will be approximately equal to the water level in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, so will the water level in the pond. 47.-48. Accepted and incorporated. 49.-50. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated. 8. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was more to the application than just substitution of reuse for well water. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-22. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (The two District witnesses disagreed.) Even if true, subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 28.-29. Accepted; subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 30. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence, subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 31.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 39.-40. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law; rest, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and in part conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found; second sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. 53.-55. Accepted, but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated. 57.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 63. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire D. Robert Hoyle, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Flroida 34206 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuser & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston,Esq. General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 16th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue to Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44000227.002 (the ERP), which would modify Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 (the Permit) and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481, issued by the District to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District issued Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park (MHP) located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Angler’s Green MHP Angler’s Green MHP is an 83-acre residential golf course development of approximately 385 homes located off of State Road 37 near Mulberry. Residents at Angler’s Green own their own mobile homes and lease the residential lots pursuant to annual leases expiring December 31 of each year, with guaranteed renewal conditioned upon owner compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease. Prior to being developed as a mobile home park, the property which is now Angler’s Green MHP was part of a phosphate mining operation and was reclaimed under a phosphate mining land reclamation plan approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and a reclamation contract dated September 4, 1984. Final contours of the Angler’s Green site were made in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. After reclamation contouring, a 23-acre manmade (former phosphate mine pit) lake remained in the northeast quadrant of the Angler's Green site. The resulting lake had a finger arm (bay or cove) extending from the southwest corner of the main body of the lake, oriented in a north-to-south direction and located west of a peninsula of land extending into the northwest part of the lake from the north. The lake also had a short, narrow canal leading into the main body of the lake from the south; the canal connected at a right angle to longer narrow waterway to the south of and extending parallel to the main body of the lake in an east-to-west orientation. There also were two smaller ponds on the property after reclamation contouring. After reclamation, surface water onsite generally flowed westerly and discharged from the property to a railroad ditch along the western boundary of the property. The recorded post-reclamation, pre-development water level for the 23-acre lake, as indicated on the site grading plans, was around 127.1 to 127.8 feet above Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.). The 1985 Permits On July 10, 1985, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century to authorize the construction of a surface water management system for Angler’s Green. The MSSW Permit had an expiration date of July 10, 1988. As designed, the permitted Angler’s Green surface water management system was to route internal stormwater runoff to swales, detention ponds, and catchment areas before discharging through a sidebank sand filtration system (a berm approximately 300 feet long containing an 8” perforated drain pipe covered by a filter fabric and sand filter material) to receiving waters at the northwest corner of the property. The permitted system was designed with five drainage areas known as Basins A through E. Basin A was in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin B was to its east in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin E was to the north of Basin A and included the 23-acre former phosphate mining pit reclaimed as an artificial lake, which was referred to as “Lake E” or sometimes “Pond E"; Basin C was to the west of Basin E; and Basin D was to the west of Basin C and to the north of Basin B. The two smaller ponds on the property were designated Pond C-1 and Pond B-1 and were located in Basin C and Basin B, respectively. Basin D was in the northwest corner of the site; the discharge structure was in the northwest corner of Basin D. As the system was designed, stormwater from Basin E would appear to sheet flow naturally into Lake E; stormwater from Basin A would appear to flow naturally to the southwest, away from Lake E, but the system routed the water from the southwest corner of Basin A to the western end of the waterway on Lake E through an underground pipe. Stormwater from Basin B was to flow to and be retained in Pond B-1; as the system was designed, surface water was not designed to discharge offsite from Basin B. As designed, Lake E served as a detention pond for water from Basin E and Basin A. It was to have a control structure (CS-1) in the arm of Lake E that would produce a seasonal fluctuation range of two feet, from 127.5’ above M.S.L. to 129.5’ above M.S.L. Stormwater discharging from CS- 1 was to be conveyed by pipe to Pond C-1, where it was to mingle with surface water draining from Basin C. When full, Pond C-1 would cascade into the golf course area in Basin D and, as necessary, in a portion of Basin B. After catchment and detention in the golf course area, overflow was eventually and ultimately to discharge offsite through the side-bank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. In this manner, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 25- year storm event, which was estimated to produce approximately 8 inches of water in a 24-hour period. It also was designed to comply with the water quality requirements as specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25 (1985 Ann. Supp.) by detaining the first half-inch of runoff before discharging it offsite through the sidebank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. (All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Omission of the Stangls During the review process, the District noted from drawings submitted as part of Century's MSSW Permit application that the project area did not include approximately the eastern third of the main body of Lake E. District staff brought this to Century's attention in a request for additional information (RAI) and stated: "If possible, you should obtain a perpetual right to operate and maintain the lake from other owners." In response, Century falsely represented to the District that L. Kirk McKay, a joint venture partner of Century, was the only riparian owner on Lake E and that Century had obtained from him a perpetual right to operate and maintain Lake E as part of the MSSW Permit. In fact, the Stangls owned property on the east side of the lake, including approximately 500 feet of lakefront and contiguous lake bottom. The Stangls and two partners purchased the property from McKay himself in 1979. The Stangls bought out their partners in 1984. The District relied on Century's misrepresentation. The District would not have issued the MSSW Permit to Century if the District had known that Century did not own or control all the land being used for the Permit--specifically, including all of Lake E. See Rule 40D-4.101(1)(d) and (2)(d)6. (1985) (application must include "evidence of ownership or control"). In addition, because the District was unaware of the Stangls' ownership of a portion of Lake E, the District did not require Century to give the Stangls direct, actual notice of the Century's permit application. Instead, the District only required that Century publish notice of the District’s receipt of the permit application. Notice was published on April 3, 1985, in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation qualified under the terms of Section 50.011, Florida Statutes. But the Stangls did not see the published notice, were unaware of the permit application, and did not ask to participate in the permitting process. The Stangl property adjacent to Angler’s Green remained undeveloped and unoccupied until 1999, when the Stangls' son, John, established a business on the site. Prior to 1999, the Stangls visited the property a couple times a year. They were fully aware of the construction and operation of Anglers Green as a mobile home park across Lake E. During this time, Century leased 385 lots with guaranteed annual renewal conditioned only upon compliance with lease terms and conditions. Amenities under the leases included clubhouse and golf course privileges. At no time before 2000 did the Stangls take any action to challenge the validity of Century's 1985 MSSW Permit. 1985 Surface Water Management Permitting Requirements In 1985, permitting requirements for surface water management systems were divided between two regulatory schemes. Surface water management permits in Polk County were issued by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, which addressed water quantity and flooding issues for projects greater than and less than 40 acres, respectively. Water quality permits or exemptions from water quality permitting requirements were issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 17-25 to address water quality concerns. It was not until 1988 that permitting requirements were consolidated into the MSSW regulatory program administered by the District under Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40. In 1985, the District did not have a Basis of Review (BOR) to specify system design requirements for applicants to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of surface water permits were satisfied. Standards and criteria for the design and performance of surface water management systems were contained in Rule 40D-4.301(2) (1985) Under subsection (2)(i) of that rule, projects designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25 [Regulation of Stormwater Discharge] were presumed to meet applicable State water quality requirements. There were no requirements for wet detention pond littoral zones. 20. Under Rule 17-25.03(2)(b) (1985 Ann. Supp.), stormwater management systems for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres that provided retention or detention with filtration of the first half-inch of runoff were exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule Chapter 17-25. 21. In 1985, District Rule 40D-4.301(2)(j) (1985) allowed for natural areas and existing water bodies to be used for stormwater retention or detention purposes when not in conflict with environmental or public use considerations. Areas that could be considered for this purpose included previously-degraded areas or man-made areas (such as borrow pits). Apparently, the District allowed Century to use Lake E as a detention pond under this provision. Deviations from MSSW Permit Angler’s Green MHP was constructed in two phases, with the first phase completed in 1985, and the second phase completed in 1987. Construction of at least the part of the surface water management system to serve the first phase took place prior to 1985; it was not clear from the evidence whether construction of the part of the surface water management system to serve the second phase also took place prior to 1985, but it clearly took place prior to construction of the second phase in 1987. Condition No. 4 of Century's MSSW Permit required the submittal of a certification that the system was constructed in accordance with the approved and permitted design. But Century did not provide any such certification. Century also never certified to the District that its new stormwater discharge facility, as constructed, continued to qualify for exemption from State water quality requirements. Although the surface water management system was constructed and operating, the District never transferred the 1985 Permit to the operation phase. In several respects, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was not constructed as designed, approved, and permitted in 1985. The pipe to convey stormwater from the southwest corner of Basin A back to the Lake E waterway apparently never was constructed; instead, stormwater from Basin A was routed to Pond B-1. (There also was a berm constructed in Basin A near the southern boundary of the site; but that berm apparently was a visual berm, and there was no evidence that it affected performance of the surface water management system.) Control structure CS-1 (which was supposed to be located in the arm or bay of Lake E) and the pipe to convey overflow from there into Pond C-1 also never were constructed. By the early 1990's, Angler's Green was experiencing flooding in the golf course area in Basin D and B for extended periods of time. In November 1993, the District responded to a complaint of flooding in that vicinity. Upon investigation, the District determined that malfunction of the surface water management system serving Reservation Lakes (now known as Paradise Lakes), a development to the north and downstream of the Angler's Green system, was causing water to back up through the wetlands and the sand filtration system in the northwest corner of the Angler’s Green project. As a result, water overtopped the discharge structure, equalized at levels above the top of the discharge structure's berm, and flooded the golf course for extended periods of time. At some undetermined point in time, an unpermitted pond was dug in Basin D, apparently in an attempt to alleviate flooding of the golf course. In addition, possibly for the same purpose, a pump was installed in Basin D near Pond C-1, and a pipe was installed to convey stormwater from there into Lake E. The sidebank sand filtration system designed to provide filtration of stormwater prior to discharge from the northwest corner of the site does not appear to exist today. It may be present but difficult to see after 15 years of plant growth; or it may have been removed or disturbed as a result of re-grading in the area. However, the evidence proved that the discharge structure was present in 1993, and there is no reason to believe that it was not installed during construction of the surface water management system--i.e., by 1987 at the latest. In addition, at some undetermined point in time, a pipe was installed at the northeast corner of Lake E to convey overflow from Lake E eastward to a drainage ditch located alongside SR 37 to the north of the Stangls' property. No witnesses could testify as to when the pipe to the SR 37 ditch was installed or its elevation. (The District and Century state in their PRO that Map No. 2 in P/I Exhibit 14--an aerial map/survey submitted to the District by Century on August 13, 1990, as part of Century's 1990 Water Use Permit No. 209993.000 application--notes the pipe's elevation as 127.95 feet above M.S.L.; but no such finding could be made from review of the exhibit.) Roads in Angler's Green have inverted crowns to convey runoff from roads, driveways, and roofs away from mobile home lots. Some runoff from these impervious surfaces appears to be directed into a swale on the east side of the site; this swale leads to Lake E. In addition, approximately 12 drains have been installed in or near roads in Angler's Green that convey water through pipes directly into Lake E or Pond C-1. Under current Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, road drains connecting impervious surfaces to Lake E would have to be shown on application construction drawings, and separate stormwater calculations would have to be provided in an application. But in 1985 this was not required. Century's calculations, together with flow arrows on drawings showing the direction of stormwater flow towards the detention ponds, were considered sufficient--especially since Century's calculations used a relatively high runoff co-efficient. As a result, the existence of these drains and pipes are not considered to be substantial deviations from the original, approved design. Similarly, approximately 64 roof drains and pipes conveying water from roofs directly into Lake E and Pond C-1 would not be considered substantial deviations from the original, approved design. In addition, these apparently were installed by mobile homeowners over the years, not by Century. From 1985 to 2000, the District did not have occasion to address regulatory concerns at Angler’s Green, except for the complaint of flooding in the golf course area that occurred in November 1993 and a more recent complaint about an area of the golf course that was designed to flood under certain conditions. Otto Stangl’s Complaint and the District’s Response Around November 1999, John Stangl noticed a fish kill in the ditch along SR 37 near the Stangl property. He also was contacted by a governmental compliance officer concerning the fish kill. Upon investigating, John Stangl saw the unpermitted pipe leading from Lake E that was discharging into the SR 37 ditch where the fish kill was observed, as well as the unpermitted pump that was pumping water from the Angler’s Green golf course area through a pipe that discharged into Lake E. In February 2000, Otto Stangl complained to the District about the fish kill and the existence of the unpermitted structures associated with Lake E. Upon receiving Otto Stangl’s complaint, District staff conducted site visits of the Angler’s Green project. Staff observed the unauthorized pump and pipe conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E and the unauthorized pipe conveying water from Lake E to the SR 37 ditch. Staff also observed that the Lake E control structure was missing, the pipe to convey stormwater from Basin A to Lake E was missing, and Basin D had been re-graded. In February 2000, the District also became aware of the fact that Century did not have full ownership or control of Lake E. On March 15, 2000, the District issued Century Notice of Non-Compliance and directed Century to either construct the system as designed and permitted or to seek a permit modification. On May 8, 2000, Century submitted a letter application to modify the original MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 by constructing the originally permitted Lake E control structure and pipe conveying water from Lake E to Pond C-1, but in a different location in Lake E than originally permitted due to the existence of homes at the location where these structures were originally planned. The application was subsequently amended to be a formal modification upon Century’s request for further modification to allow Basin A stormwater to flow to Pond B-1 and to expand Pond B-1 and add a control structure and an effluent filtration system. Despite having actual knowledge since at least February 2000 that the Angler's Green surface water management system was built partially on their property, the Stangls did not ask for a hearing on the 1985 Permit. Instead, they awaited the District's consideration of Century's modification application and sought to challenge the District's notice of intent to grant the modification permit issued on October 29, 2001. The District’s Regulatory Compliance Practices In the 1980's, the District appeared to pay little or no attention to construction of permitted projects or submission of required post-construction certifications. Many projects permitted by the District in the 1980’s, such as Angler’s Green, were built and operating although no certifications had been submitted; as a result, the permits issued for these projects never were transferred to the operation phase. Eventually, some projects not built in compliance with issued permits came to the attention of the District, typically through third-party complaints about drainage problems and flooding. By this time, there was a large backlog of issued construction permits for which no required post-construction certifications had been submitted. The backlog of these older projects was so large that the District decided not to initiate an aggressive, systematic, and comprehensive review of all permits for which no required certifications had been submitted. Instead, projects were checked on an ad hoc basis as complaints regarding the functioning of their surface water management systems were registered. When it came to the attention of the District in this manner that a project had been built under an MSSW permit but that no required certifications had been submitted, the District first attempted to secure the required certifications in the form of certified as-built construction drawings and a Statement of Completion, as required by BOR 2.7. In so doing, it was common practice for the District to accept certifications beyond the expiration date on a permit. If projects were substantially completed, the District would not deem the permit as expired simply because the required certifications had not been submitted before the expiration date; and such projects did not lose their status as being permitted. It should be noted that, according to the testimony of the District's expert, William Hartmann, this agency practice was not based on an interpretation of Rule 40D- 4.321(1)(b) (1985) (on duration of construction permits). Rather, the agency practice was to ignore the expiration of the construction permit under those circumstances. In addition, it does not appear from the evidence that the District ever before has faced the situation presented in this case--where a person on whose property part of a surface water management system was built without the person's consent opposes modification and asserts the construction permit has expired. In cases where the agency's practice was applied, if the required certified as-built construction drawings and Statement of Completion could not be provided because the project was not built in accordance with the MSSW permit, the District would require the permittee to either bring the system into compliance with the approved permit designs or obtain a modification of the construction permit. Letter modifications would be accepted when the requested modification would not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase the authorized offsite discharge, impact the environmental features of the project, decrease the required retention/detention, decrease the required flood control elevations for roads or buildings, or decrease pollution removal efficiency. See Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b) (1985). (The current version of the rule adds renewal or extension of the existing permit duration.) Alterations meeting the threshold requirements for a letter modification would be presumed to meet the conditions for issuance for a permit. Otherwise, formal permit modifications would be required. When application is made for a permit modification, the District’s practice is to evaluate those aspects of the surface water management system being modified. Review generally would not extend to the entire system. Permittees seeking to modify their surface water management systems generally are not required by the District to bring the unmodified portions of the system into compliance with current design criteria. Proposed ERP Permit Modification ERP Application No. 44000227.002 seeks authorization to modify portions of the Angler’s Green surface water management system. The specific alterations for which approval is sought are: permanent removal of the existing, unpermitted 18-inch pipe between Lake E and SR 37 roadside ditch; permanent removal of the pump and associated piping conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E; installation of the control structure (CS-1), together with installation of pipe to convey water from the control structure to Pond C-1, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but different location in the northwest corner of the main body of Lake E; re-grading of the northwesterly portion of the golf course to more closely conform to the original permitted plan and help keep Basin B separate from Basin D; reconstruction of the side-bank sand filter system in the northwest corner of the property, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but with a slightly higher invert elevation (122.04 feet above M.S.L.) to prevent water from backing up into Angler's Green from Paradise Lakes again, and with a concrete flume and spreader swale between Pond C-1 and the berm of the side-bank sand filter system; enlargement of Pond B-1; installation of a control structure on Pond B-1; and installation of 100 feet of 6-inch side-bank sand filter discharging to the southwest corner of the property from Pond B-1. By removing the unpermitted pipe to the roadside ditch along SR 37 and by constructing control structure CS-1, with the same control elevations as in the 1985 Permit (albeit at a different location in Lake E), and connecting CS-1 by pipe to Pond C-1 as envisioned in the 1985 Permit, the function of Lake E should approximate its function under the design approved in 1985. Modifying the permitted design to authorize Basin A to flow to Pond B-1 instead of Lake E results in less water flowing to Lake E; these changes will not increase water quantity or quality impacts to Lake E, as compared to the 1985 Permit. As compared to reclamation conditions prior to implementation of the 1985 Permit, water quantity and quality impacts to Lake E would be expected both under the system as designed and permitted in 1985 and as proposed to be modified, by virtue of the similar use of Lake E as a detention pond under either system. Pond B-1 is being enlarged to better accommodate the flow from Basin A. The control structure being added at Pond B-1 will control flow into the swale to the west so as to address water quantity impacts in that area. Stormwater calculations for the revised Pond B-1 demonstrated that the post-development discharge rate will not exceed the pre- development discharge rate, so that there are no concerns for adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands or flooding impacts to on-site or off-site property. The historical flows to the west are still maintained. The discharge structure being added at Pond B-1 will account for treatment of the Basin A flow. Based on calculations for revised Pond B-1, the enlarged pond will retain and percolate half an inch of stormwater runoff from the contributing area in 36 hours (which is consistent with current BOR design requirements). The proposed Pond B-1/Basin B modifications, including the routing of Basin A stormwater to Pond B-1, will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters in that vicinity such that state water quality standards would be violated. Angler's Green is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area of Polk County. No surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established for this area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The proposed modifications do not involve any works of the District. The proposed modifications are based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and employ treatment methods of effluent filtration which involve commonly accepted designs that can be effectively performed and function as proposed. There are no concerns about Century’s financial, legal, or administrative capability to undertake the proposed modifications as specified in the permit, if issued. There are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established for this area. Environmental Concerns As with its review of the proposed permit modification for water quantity impacts, the District's review of environmental concerns was limited to review of impacts from the proposed modifications to the original permitted design; unmodified portions of the original permit were not reviewed for compliance with current requirements. An approximately 20 square-foot permanent impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of the control structure (SW-1) in the water. A 379 square-foot temporary impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of a cofferdam to facilitate construction of the control structure. Temporary impacts to Lake E resulting from the construction of the control structure would be addressed through the use of sediment and erosion controls to prevent possible sedimentation and turbidity that may arise during the construction activity. The placement of a control structure in Lake E would create very minor permanent impacts resulting from the loss of the footprint of the control structure. These impacts would be insignificant. Due to the very minor nature of these proposed impacts, no mitigation would be required, and no loss of wetlands would be required to be recorded on the Wetlands/Surface Water Table. Construction of SW-1 would not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. No secondary impacts would be expected from construction of SW-1. No unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters would be expected to occur as a result of construction of SW-1. The project area includes .71 acre of herbaceous/forested wetlands (WL-1) in the northwest corner. The potential for secondary impacts is addressed by an existing fence surrounding WL-1, which eliminates concerns for secondary impacts to this wetland area. No adverse impacts would be anticipated to occur to these wetlands, and no adverse secondary impacts to the water resources would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed modifications themselves. The proposed modifications would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Class II or Class III waters would not be affected by the proposed modification project. Therefore, Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(c) is not applicable. No seawalls, lagoons or estuaries are involved in this project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(d) is not applicable. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest. Relocation of a control structure and enhancement of the Basin B portion of the system would create no significant change in impacts. The proposed modifications constitute a slight improvement over water quality from the original permitted design. No threatened or endangered species were identified for Angler’s Green. The proposed relocation and construction of the Lake E control structure, preservation of onsite wetlands in the northwest corner, and re-design of Pond B-1 present no environmental concerns. Consequently, the proposed modifications do not create any potential for adverse effects regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The proposed modifications do not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The project area does not involve navigable waters and does not affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Hence, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(3) does not apply to this permit modification application. There are no significant historical and archaeological resources involved in this Project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(6) is not applicable to this permit modification application. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest; they would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications maintain the historic water elevation for Lake E and maintain historic flows for the project area. The modified system should also provide some improvement in water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Century's permit modification application designated ERP No. 44000227.002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Magri, Esquire Merkle & Magri, P.A. 5510 West LaSalle Street Tampa, Florida 33607-1713 Joseph P. Mawhinney, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "for an improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Existing Conditions Between 1952 and 1957 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Florida Central and Southern Flood Control District (the forerunner of SFWMD) constructed a chain of levees, L-1, L-2, L-3 and later L-4 in eastern Hendry County, Florida. These levees which begin approximately 10 miles to the southwest of Lake Okeechobee run first east, then south and then east again for a distance of approximately 38 miles. The purpose of these levees is to shield the land5/ to the east of them from the natural sheet flow of water which comes from the west during the area's rainy season. The EAA which is protected from natural flooding consist of rich muck soils which have been successfully exploited for years by sugar cane farming. The present levees were created by excavating a "borrow" canal parallel to the southern and western sides of L-1, 2, 3 and 4. The borrow canal is no larger than was required to provide sufficient material for construction of the levees; nevertheless, the canal has a considerable water carrying capacity in the amount of 1,260 CFS 6/ at peak flow. The canal is a navigable fresh water of the state. It interconnects into other navigable canals which terminate in either Lake Okeechobee or the Miami River. The water carried by the borrow canal flows south and discharges into the Miami canal via either a pumping station designated S-8, or via the borrow canal next to L-28.7/ The water which enters the Miami canal ultimately travels to canal C-60 and then into the section of WCA-3 south of Alligator Alley (State Road 84). Flooding The rain water which once moved from west to east directly across the eastern portion of Hendry County, Florida into the EAA is now interdicted by L- 1, 2 and 3. As a result it ponds in the corner of the intersection of L-1 and L-2 (known in these proceedings as the L-1 angle). The area flooded is grass land used by Hendry County ranchers for the open grazing of beef cattle. Some of the pasture is improved, that is fertilized, but the majority of the area is unimproved range. During flood times the ranchers move their cattle to alternative pastures either to the north or to the west. The deepest flooding, when it occurs, is immediately next to the levees in the L-1 angle. The flooding has been known to reach depths as great as 10 feet and to extend westward for several miles. Because the land to the west of the L-1 angle is higher, the depth of the flooding decreases in a westerly direction. The duration of the ponding immediately in the L-1 angle has been as long as 80 days after a prolonged and heavy rainfall event. This flooding occurs despite the capacity of the borrow canal to remove 0.18 inch of flood water per day from the inundated area. When there is flooding in the L-1 angle there is also high water In the northeast corner of WCA-3A where some of the water from the borrow canal is presently discharged. During a dry season the land immediately adjacent to the present borrow canal suffers overdraining due to seepage of ground water into the canal and its resulting evaporation or conveyance south. Water Conservation Area 3A is part of a series of conservation areas established as their name implies to conserve water. Extending over portions of several South Florida counties including Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, they provide the recharge source for the Biscayne Aquifer and other aquifers which are the water supply for metropolitan South Florida. The water conservation areas are also wildlife refuges and provide natural habitats for numerous South Florida animals such as deer, alligator, and wading birds. Description of Project The Hendry County plan as described by the Corps in General Design Memorandum No. 2, 8/ envisions the construction of a flood control canal, C- 139, with two water flow control structures, S-239 and S-243. To create C-139, the Corps plans to further excavate the existing borrow canal next to L-2, L-3 and L-4 for a total distance of 37 miles. See Illustration I.* This excavation will result in the removal of 5.2 million cubic yards of earth and limestone. Some of the resulting spoil will be used to create a levee along the west side of C-139. Most of the excavation will be done by draglines on the canal banks. Upon its completion C-139 will be an immense water conveyance. At its northern end the canal will be only five feet across the bottom with a depth of 10.6 feet, but by the time the canal reaches WCA-3A it will have enlarged to a bottom width of 80 feet across and a depth of 19.5 feet. Its peak design capacity is 3,000 CFS. That is more than twice the present capacity of the existing borrow canal. Downstream from S-239 C-139 turns south to be designated C-139(S) and to gradually become increasingly shallower. This will cause a discharge pattern designed to create a sheet flow across WCA-3A. Benefits, Future Land Use It appears that when levees L-1, 2 and 3 were constructed the Corps failed to fully consider the adverse effect which would result from the impoundment of water by the new levees. According to the General Design Memorandum, Levees 1, 2, 3 and 4 were constructed in the mid 1950s to prevent flood waters originating on the then sparsely developed lands westward of the levees from contri- buting to flooding on the rich agricultural lands lying to the east of the levees. The original borrow canals were sized based on materials needed for the levee construction. The sparse economic development of the lands to the west precluded increasing the con- veyance capacity of these canals to prevent flooding on those lands. Construction of the levees and the subsequent increased de- velopment over the drainage area have aggra- vated flooding problems on the lands. Water stands on some of the land during practically the entire wet season virtually every year. As the landowners developed the land, they became increasingly vociferous about con- struction of works to alleviate the flooding for which they contend is project-induced. There is merit in their contention in that the adjacent project works adversely affected both depth and duration of flooding in the area west of Levees 1, 2 and 3. (Emphasis added) The facts presented at the instant final hearing are somewhat to the contrary, in that there was no showing of significant subsequent development west of the levees after their construction. For many decades vast family ranches have raised cattle on the mentioned lands as they continue to do today. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to now provide flood control to an approximately 261 square mile drainage basin west of the flood-causing levees.9/ With a design capacity of 3,000 CFS, C-139 can handle twice the water which drains through the present borrow canal. By way of comparison the present canal has a drainage capacity of .18 inches per day from the flooded area during a ten-year flood,10/ while C-139 has the capacity to drain .43 inches per day. This heightened discharge rate will cause land in the L-1 angle to flood less, and once flooded, to be underwater for a shorter period of time. For instance, an area which during a ten-year storm might have been submerged for 40 days prior to the construction of the project Is estimated to have an inundation period of only 10 days upon the project's completion. The significance of the reduced flooding to the landowners in the flooded area is difficult to gauge from the evidence. Because an intensification of land use would result in a lowering in the quality of the water which runs off the land and into C-139 and thence into the environmentally sensitive water conservation area,11/ the landowners supporting the project were understandably reluctant to testify that the project will allow them to use their land for more than continued cattle grazing. The testimony of Mr. Joe Hillard, a partner in Hillard Bros. of Florida, Inc., one of the larger ranches is illustrative: Q If this project, the flood control portion, were built, would your company change any of its land uses on this land that you described? A No, sir, not at all. Not with what I understand is going to be done with the project I wouldn't change anything. In response to the Hearing Officer's later inquiry, Mr. Hillard explained that the project would allow pasture land to be used for twelve months per year as opposed to the current nine months per year during a flood season. He does not anticipate grazing any more head per acre after the project. This evidence contrasted with the assumptions made by the Corps in that part of the General Design Memorandum which discusses the cost-benefit ratio of the project. The Memorandum states at p. 52: As noted previously, the existing activity within the area is predominately agricultural with major emphasis in beef cattle production. Local landowners and managers were asked to indicate the production changes they expected to make with the reduced flood hazards available under with (sic) project condi- tions. These expectations were prepared as a land use map with the basic control matrix. For the most part, these changes in land use represented more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. In some cases, existing beef pastures were expected to be replaced with sugarcane, truck crops, and citrus production. The majority of the changes were an upgrading of existing beef cattle operations. Such upgrading was affected (sic) by planting the more pro- ductive types of pasture such as clover and grass combinations, and the application of additional fertilizers and supplemental water. These expectations were assumed to exist under favorable cultivation conditions. Because of the nature of soil conditions in the project drainage basin, sandy with poor nutrient and water retention ability, it is unlikely that land use in the 261 square mile drainage basin will change significantly. As predicted by Mr. Hillard, it is likely that all the project would do is allow more grazing time on land which is now periodically flooded. Since it is not the function of this proceeding to inquire into whether the purported cost- benefit ratio of the project is accurate, no findings will be made concerning that issue. Project Permitting History The Hendry County portion of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project for flood control west of levees 1, 2 and 3 was authorized by the Congress of the United States in the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965. The Army Corps of Engineers is the actual builder of the project, but SFWMD is the local sponsor and is the Corps' agent in applying for the necessary permits from DER. The Department as the permitting agency is in a curious position here. Its Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) was responsible for the State Public Works Program through which Florida requested Congress to fund the Hendry County Project. Mr. Charles Littlejohn who was head of the Bureau in 1976 had the responsibility of lobbying in Washington for funding of the project. The DER through its Bureau of Permitting is now asked to pass on the validity of a project which the BWR has so vigorously promoted. The Department's uncomfortable posture was recognized by its permitting staff. In a memorandum dated March 9, 1979 to Mr. E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Mr. Forrest Fields at DER wrote: I told Mr. Brown, as I told you yesterday that I felt rather awkward in reviewing for permitting a project which the agency had endorsed for the public works list." Every year projects being sponsored for federal approval are reviewed by a process In the Division of State Planning called the A-95 Clearinghouse.12/ The Hendry County Project had a checkered history there. Serious objections concerning the environmental impact of the project were raised; nevertheless, DER through the BWR continued to seek and was successful in obtaining federal funding. On November 15, 1978, SFWMD filed an application with DER for the requisite permits to begin construction. During the course of DER's review of the project several issues arose between the parties. Among them were: Whether local approval pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes would be required? Would an exception from dissolved oxygen (DO) standards be necessary? Whether local water quality standards would apply if they were stricter than state standards? Local Approval As early as February 19, 1979, DER noted that plans submitted by the applicant proposed the placement of fill in waters of the state. In a letter to Mr. Lee M. Brown of SFWMD, Mr. Forrest Fields, the DER permit processor, observed: Second, on page 2/11 of your drawings, you indicated that approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material will be placed water- ward of ordinary mean high water. I pre- sume that this fill is associated with structures S-243 and S-239. Pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, approval of this filling by resolution of the local government is required. To do this I will, upon receipt of the Department of Environ- mental Regulation field report, summarize and send this to the Hendry County Commission. The Commission will have to consider this report, and, by vote, adopt a resolution approving the project. I will send you a sample resolution. The requirement of local approval was reiterated numerous times. In March, 1979, Mr. Fields sent a staff report of a biological survey of the project to the Hendry County Commission for consideration in their approval of the project. During a meeting on March 21, 1979 in the DER Secretary's office representatives of SFWMD were told that local approval would be required. On April 10, 1979 the County Commissioners of Hendry County gave their approval to the project. In correspondence to Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society, Secretary Jacob D. Varn noted that the permit applications were still incomplete because local approval for filling associated with the two water control structures had not yet been received by DER. During a public meeting held on May 22, 1979, the County Commissioners of Broward County, after three and one-half hours of testimony, voted 6-0 against approving the project as it related to fill in Broward County. Subsequent to that vote the Corps and SFWMD asserted that local approval by Broward County was not required. In response to this assertion Mr. Charles Littlejohn, on behalf of the Secretary, requested a legal opinion from DER's General Counsel. On October 30, 1979, General Counsel's Legal Opinion 79- 72 concluded that the Department could assert Chapter 253 jurisdiction over the project and therefore "local approval" is a statutory requirement for its permitting. On March 17, 1980 Mrs. Evelyn Jackman of Jackman and Sons, Inc., one of the major ranchers in the project drainage basin, wrote to Governor Graham to urge the rapid approval of the project. Her correspondence was forwarded to DER for an appropriate response. Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel as Assistant Secretary noted in her reply on April 3, 1980 that: Pursuant to Section 253.124(3), Florida Statutes approval must be obtained from the County Commissioners before we can complete the processing of a permitting application for fill in navigable waters. Approval has not been received from Broward County and there Is fill proposed for the Broward County portion of the project. Ms. Tschinkel did, however, assure Mrs. Jackman that: The Department of Environmental Regulation is sympathetic to the problems outlined in your letter, and for that reason the Depart- ment has made this project part of its public works package given each year to Congress. We still support this as a public works pro- ject and for that reason we are attempting to work out the permitting problems as ex- peditiously as possible. Shortly after Ms. Tschinkel's letter was sent there was another meeting in the Secretary's office to discuss the project. Mr. Lotspeich's interoffice memorandum outlines the Department's new position as it related to local approval. In addition, the issue of what constituted fill pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for local approval purposes was discussed. Helen Setchfield also partici- pated in this discussion. After Helen and I looked more closely at the project, it appeared that only a concrete structure (S-239) was to be placed waterward of OHW.13/ We both agreed that in past permitting practices we had not required local approval for the construction of structures waterward of OHW, but only when fill to extend existing lands or create new lands was involved. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the fill and structure relative to OHW and sheet 2 of 11 clearly indicates that fill will be placed "below MHW" Forrest must have assumed that local approval would be required if the canal was determined to be under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdic- tion. GCO-79-72 from Randie Denker indicated that the Department can assert Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdiction in the canals and therefore local approval would be required. It would appear that there was really no clear understanding as to what the "fill" consisted of in the case of structure 239. Conversation with Mr. Walker [counsel for SFWMD] and Messrs. Parsons [counsel for Alico and other landowners] and Davis [SFWMD] indicated that there was no intention to place fill in the canal waterward of OHW and that the concrete structure would span the entire canal width. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the structure and fill re- lative to existing OHW, Mr. Walker said he would provide new drawings which would show this. Helen and I discussed the situation and we scheduled an appointment to talk the problem over the (sic) Terry Cole. It was agreed at the meeting that simultaneous "intent" letters would be sent on May 5, 1980 from permitting and the exception review people. May 16, 1980 DER entered into a Stipulation with SFWMD which states in its entirety: The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION for purposes of this proceeding hereby stipulate and agree that: The DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION has jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to require permits autho- rizing construction and other activities described in the application which is the subject of this proceeding. None of the activities or construction, including the construction of the proposed Spillway S-239, as described in the appli- cation which is the subject of this pro- ceeding, constitute construction of islands or an addition to or extension of existing lands and islands so that approval of local governments as described in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, is not required. This Stipulation is executed by counsel for each party on the date shown. On May 20, 1980 coordinated letters of intent to grant permits for the construction of the project were issued. Pursuant to the Stipulation local approval was no longer being required by DER. Alternative Site Specific Criteria After receipt of SFWMD's permit application for the construction of C- 139 and associated structures, DIR noted that it did not have adequate data on dissolved oxygen. In correspondence dated March 9, 1979, Mr. Forrest Fields said: Fourth, the dissolved oxygen data are not adequate. The available data were col- lected during daylight, only, and these data include occasional concentrations of less than 4.0 mg/l. In an effort to re- solve these deficiencies so that reasonable assurances may be provided, you, Walt Dineen, and I will discuss the South Florida Water Management District data on Thursday, March 15. The results of the March 15, 1979 meeting were memorialized by Mr. Fields in a file memorandum dated March 19, 1979. The memorandum stated in pertinent part that: On March 15, 1979, Mr. Lee Brown, Mr. Walt Dineen, and Mr. Fred Davis, from SFWMD, called to discuss the staff's request for "reasonable assurance" re. the Department's water quality standards. Mr. Davis, the applicant's chief chemist, said that, throughout the Everglades, in both canals and conservation areas, the water quality standards for both conductivity and dis- solved oxygen are frequently violated. He asserted that this is typical of the area. He believes that these data represent natural background. The situation regarding affirmative, reasonable assurance appears to be this: widespread and frequent observations of DO data which are less than the minimum for Class III waters commonly occur within the existing L-1, L-2, L-3 canals. The increase in depth associated with C-139 is predicted to exacerbate existing stress- es on the DO regime.... However, the SFWMD's response does not constitute reasonable assurance re. other Class III standards. The District's DO and conductivity data may conceivably supply assurances that these standards will be violated in C-139. (Whether background DO and conductivity violate the standards may become important.) The District appears to have two alternatives: 1) attack the Class III standard; 2) apply for variances for, at least, DO and conductivity. A follow-up meeting was held on March 21, 1979. Again, in a file memorandum dated March 28, 1979 Mr. Fields wrote: Consideration of reasonable assurance began at the March 15, 1979, conversation among Messrs. Brown, Davis and Fields. According to the SFWMD, widespread and frequent violations of the Class III water quality standard for dissolved oxygen, as contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., occur throughout the Everglades, in the canals, agriculture areas, Lake Okeechobee, and the conservation areas. The existing borrow canals follow this pattern. The SFWMD alleges that this condition is natural back- ground. They agree that it is probable that any existing DO stresses exist in the borrow canal will be exacerbated in the proposed C-139. However, both the former and present editions of Chapter 17-3 F.A.C. allow for exceptions for natural background. The SFWMD will review these rules to determine which regulatory approach will be taken. In addition, the SFWMD will supply to DER data for the "benchmark" station in the L-28 canal and at Everglades National Park to demonstrate lower back- ground concentrations of DO. Furthermore, the SFWMD will apply, per Ch. 403.087, F.S., for a temporary operating permit for the completed structure. Conditions governing private connections and incor- porating BMPs may be included in the TOP. On April 5, 1979, SFWMD submitted in support of its original permit application a document called Evaluation of Natural Background Dissolved Oxygen in Conservation Area 3-A, South Florida. This evaluation received unfavorable reviews at. DER. Landon P. Ross, chief biologist, wrote in an April 9, 1979 memo that: I have reviewed the data provided by SFWMD regarding background DOs in the Everglades area and have the following comments: Indication that DOs are not harmful to local organisms are, in a legal sense, irrelevant to the question. The data provided give evidence of the occurrence of low DOs in the area. Since the measured low DOs seem to be from artificial drainage channels, they can hardly be supposed to be "natural". The measures that SFWMD provided, however, do not seem too different from the values that I would expect to find in a natural swamp habitat. The proposed "standard" cannot be logically derived from the DO measurements provided. This Evaluation was later submitted in support of first Petition for Exception noted infra. In his review of the data Mr. Fred Bartleson at DER wrote:14/ The data submitted by the South Florida Water Management District does not justify the requested exception for dissolved oxy- gen criteria for the Hendry County Project. The petition alleges that D.O. concentra- tions lower than 1.0 mg/l occur in the re- ceiving waters of Conservation Area 3A. However, the data submitted from that area indicate a minimum value of 2.3 mg/l. The value cited in the petition of less than 1.0 mg/l was recorded in the L-3 borrow canal adjacent to the conservation area. This canal drains an agricultural area. Similar data from the L-28 east canal which is less affected by cultural activity depicts minimum D.O. values between 3 - 2 mg/l. The low D.O. values found naturally in fresh- water wetlands during the warmer months ob- viously result in stress to the biota. The introduction of larger quantities of water from the proposed Hendry County Project, which is anticipated to have lower D.O. values as well as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff, could adversely affect the ecosystem. The proposed exception allowing discharge of water with not less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours in any 24-hour period is arbitrary and not supported by data. It may well be that an exception could be granted for some lowering of the D.O. criteria with time constraints. However, more defini- tive and conclusive data are required to in- sure that this action would not cause adverse effects. The burden of supplying this infor- mation should rest with the petitioner. His views were supported by Messrs. Kevin Edwards, Vernon Myers, and G. J. Thabaraj. Mr. Edwards also noted the difference in DO readings between the WCA- 3A and the borrow canals. SFWMD filed a Petition for an Exception on July 23, 1979. The Petition alleged that the receiving waters of the proposed discharge are located in WCA-3A and that due to natural causes that portion of WCA-3A which will receive the discharge does not meet the state standards for DO as set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The DO levels of the proposed discharge are alleged to be similar to those levels already present in the water conservation area. In response to the Petition DER requested more information by a letter from Stephen Fox dated August 29, 1979. The letter requested: Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of natural causes, that is, there is an absence of man-induced alteration; or Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated with technology or management practices. Data which supports the contention that the biota have not been adversely af- fected or will not be affected adversely. The data submitted with the application did not address the possibility that the low dis- solved oxygen levels may be caused by the practice of pumping water off the agriculture areas during the summer wet season. Compari- son with similar subtropical, undisturbed aquatic environment should be made. The dis- solved oxygen data should be compared with pumping schedules and with dissolved oxygen values of water pumped. Comprehensive water- shed and land use data is needed for a thorough review. Further, the data submitted did not support the contention in the petition of a corre- lation between C.A. 3A and canals L-3 and L-28. Also, the contention that in C.A. 3A dis- solved oxygen concentrations were below 1.0 mg/l were recorded was unsupported. The data array was not adequate in terms of distri- bution and frequency of sampling, to demon- strate that the dissolved oxygen regime ap- proaches the proposed alternative criteria. On October 2, 1979, E. D. Vergara summarized the status of the SFWMD application for the DER Secretary, Jacob D. Varn. His memorandum with respect to dissolved oxygen states: ... (permits) originally requested under old 17-3 rules, it was found quality assurances could not be made due to a naturally occurring condition of low DO. The Department requested information sup- portive of the low DO background, but due to differences in opinions among the biologists, the district elected to re- quest an exception under the provisions of the new 17-3 rule instead. Additional information has now been requested by the Department to support the request for an exception, and the District is cur- rently putting this together. It is the general feeling that with this additional data, granting the exception should be possible. SFWMD responded to Mr. Fox's letter above by submitting in the Spring of 1980, an Amended Petition for Exception from Criteria. In its Amended Petition the District abandoned the comparison, found in the original petition, of the proposed discharged waters' dissolved oxygen levels to the levels found in the water conservation district. Instead the District concentrated on a comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed discharge waters to the levels in the relatively clean canals in the South Florida area, specifically the L-28 canal system. The District proposed that as an alternative to Class III standards the following criterion be established: During any 24-hour cycle the dissolved oxygen concentration within the photic zone shall exceed 1.0 mg/l, except during the extreme low point when values shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours. (Emphasis added) Accompanying SFWMD's Amended Petition was a report (Supporting Report) dated February, 1980, which provided a voluminous compilation of data to justify the alternative standard proposed.15/ On April 8, 1980, Ms. Helen Setchfield sent a memorandum to DER staff requesting that they review the Amended Petition and report back to her within five days. Also on April 8, 1980, after a meeting attended by both SFWMD representatives and DER representatives, it was decided that DER would issue coordinated letters of intent on May 5, 1980 for both the exception and the dredge and fill applications. In spite of the decision to issue letters of intent, DER permitting staff were not satisfied with the concept that ban-made canals were "natural" background or that the proposed DO standard was reasonable. On April 16, 1980, Rick Lotspeich wrote to Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, that: I have reviewed the referenced "request for exception" and it appears that the petition and supporting report are suf- ficiently complete to allow evaluation of the merits of the request. It would appear that the proposed dis- solved oxygen standard of 2.0 mg/l over 24 hours and 1.0 mg/l "during the extreme low point" for not more than two hours, is excessively low and not warranted by the data presented. A review of the data from figures 4 and 5 generally indicate that the following standard would be appropriate: Dissolved Oxygen: The concentration should not average less than 4.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 mg/l except during the months of June--September, when the concentra- tion shall not average less than 3.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and never less than 1.0 mg/l. Later, after having received comments from Rick Cantrell and Bob Siciler, Mr. Lotspeich wrote to Ms. Walker the following: My recollection from reading the request for exception was that SFWMD had indeed recognized the fact that the canals and their design had contributed to the de- pressed DO values of the water in them. Pursuant to Subsection 17-3.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, there may be a consideration for "man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated I am in full agreement with Cantrell and Siciler's discussion of the adverse impacts that canals in general, and the specific canal involved in this project, have on water quality and biological resources. However, I disagree with the conclusions that they reached. Clearly, there are extenuating circumstances involved in this case which set it apart from other dredge and fill cases. In light of these circum- stances, the fact that the depressed DO levels have resulted from man-induced causes which cannot be controlled, and Cantrell and Siciler's own statement that approval of this project has little probability of worsening the existing water quality of L-2, L-3 and WCA-3, I would recommend that the exception be granted. However, the alternate DO standard which I recommended in my previous memo is still applicable. (Emphases added. The "extenuating circum- stances" were never explained.) Subsequently, on May 20, 1980, the Department issued a coordinated letter of intent to grant an exception but for the standard proposed by Mr. Lotspeich, not that requested by the Water Management District. Dissolved Oxygen and Exception Section 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code requires that discharges into fresh waters of the state must exhibit dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.04 mg/l or more. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above that level must be maintained. Dissolved oxygen in certain concentrations is required for aquatic life. The amount of oxygen contained in water is subject to numerous variables, many of which are interrelated. They include: amount of sunlight entering the water, ability of the water to transmit light, photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants, water temperature, mechanical oxygenation, mixing with other water which may have either a higher or lower dissolved oxygen content, depth of water, rate of oxygen consumption by resident biota, and time of day. It is undisputed that during certain seasons and times of day the water in the existing borrow canal does not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard. Readings as low as 0.9 mg/l have been obtained there. These low readings usually occur in the months of heavy rainfall, primarily July through September. See the data on Figure 4 of SFWMD's Supporting Report. Similar, though not so low measurements have been obtained in neighboring man-made canals such as L-28. L-28 has been used by water quality experts as a "benchmark" for canal water quality since it does not receive large amounts of runoff from agricultural areas where pollutants such as fertilizers are used. There are numerous times during a given year that the dissolved oxygen levels in L-28 are below the 5.0 mg/l state standard. It is also possible to find at least two locations in WCA-3A wetlands where dissolved oxygen readings are below Class III standards. At Gauge 3-2 in the northwest corner of WCA-3A near where the project would discharge, dissolved oxygen levels have varied from 2.3 mg/l to 10.8 mg/l; however, the mean value for the measured levels has been 5.5 mg/l as reported on Table 2 of the Supporting Report.16/ Unfortunately, the data regarding dissolved oxygen concentrations in the proposed discharge area are scant. This paucity was recognized by the Supporting Report which states at page 6: "No systematic study of the dissolved oxygen conditions or requirements for fresh water wetlands in general, or WCA-3A in particular, have yet been conducted." Despite the limited data on WCA-3A, certain comparisons between DO readings in it and in the borrow canal which would discharge into the area can be made. Readings taken at Gauge 3-2 do not sink to levels as low as those found in L-3. Compare Figure 4 of the Report to Table 2. The minimum readings taken in L-3 were during those periods of greatest discharge. If the discharge from the existing borrow canal were presently sent into the area of Gauge 3-2 during months of peak discharge, the waters entering WCA-3A would have a lower dissolved oxygen concentration than would exist naturally in the area. It is not surprising that water in the borrow canal exhibits unusually low dissolved oxygen levels. The levee sides limit reaeration which could occur due to wind movement. The surface-to-volume ratio is also unfavorable. Much oxygenation occurs at the interface between the water and surrounding air, but because the canal is relatively deep compared to its surface area, the proportion of water coming into direct contact with the air is low.17/ The depth of the photic zone, i.e., the section of water penetrated by light, is limited due to the naturally high color of canal water. Construction of C-139 will add somewhat to a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the entire canal water column. To increase its conveyance capacity, the existing borrow canal will be deepened significantly, particularly in its southern reaches. This deepening will result in a lowering of the ratio between the area of water surface to the depth of the canal. No mathematical data were presented by which the lowered ratio can be computed; however, an examination of Plates A-24 and A- 25 of the General Design Memorandum indicates that completed C-139 will contain a higher ratio of water below the photic zone than is presently contained in the borrow canal.18/ This is true only during those times when the canal is relatively full of water. As the canal level drops during a drought the photic zone will approach the canal bottom in the shallower sections. Both SFWMD and DER have proposed site specific DO alternative standards. These have been set out in the foregoing discussion of the permitting history. There is a significant difference between the proposals. SFWMD's proposal includes only the waters contained in the photic zone. It fails to recognize that during times of discharge, the waters of C-139 which are deposited in WCA-3A will not be only those of the photic zone, but will come from the entire water column of the canal. While SFWMD's standard might be acceptable for C-139 when it is in a no discharge state, the standard is completely unacceptable when the canal is discharging. Neither the standard proposed by DER nor SFWMD recognizes the difference between the dissolved oxygen regime which can be predicted for C-139 and that presently existing in WCA-3A. The data submitted would justify an exception from the present 5.0 mg/l Class III standard. There are certainly times when both the water existing in relatively unpolluted canals and in the water conservation area contain less than the present minimal content of dissolved oxygen. When C-139 is not discharging an exception, which would have a range now exhibited by the existing borrow canal, would be justified for the new canal. Sufficient data was not presented here to suggest the precise figures for such an exception. The information given for L-3 for instance, is compiled from samples taken only once during a given day. The water depth of the sample is not given. Accurate data would account for the diel variation and the effect of water depth on each sample. Without data which gives a daily average, it is impossible to determine if the water either standing in, or discharging from C- 139 will meet any proposed alternative criterion. For the same reason the data obtained for the present DO concentrations in WCA-3A is incomplete for establishing appropriate levels for discharge waters entering that area. The establishment of site specific alternative criteria must await the submission of more complete dissolved oxygen readings from the applicant. One of the elements in considering whether to grant an exception to established standards is whether the existing biota have adapted to the background DO levels. The proof here shows that the fish and other biota now living in the borrow canal either tolerate or have adapted to the present low DO regime there. It has also been proven that the biota in WCA-3A are tolerant of the naturally occurring low DO levels in that area. It was not shown how they would respond to a massive influx of low DO water when C-139 would be discharging. Hydroperiod in WCA-3A The northwest corner of WCA-3A, where C-139 and C-139(S) will discharge, has a higher ground elevation than that of the southern portion of the water conservation area. The highest elevation in the extreme northwest corner is approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It tapers down to approximately ten feet MSL at the southern boundary of WCA-3A. The project is designed to facilitate the sheet flow of discharge water from the northwest area towards the southeast with an ultimate destination being flow into the Miami canal. The construction of the Miami canal, C-123, which runs on a northwest- southeast diagonal across the area, causes overdrainage of the northwest section. The borrow canal along Alligator Alley also contributes to excess runoff. This overdrainage has shortened the hydroperiod in the northwest corner from approximately 9 to 10 months to approximately 5 to 7 months. "Hydroperiod" is the span of time during which land is inundated by ponded water. The shorten hydroperiod has a profoundly destructive impact on the natural environment. The muck soil when not submerged oxidizes at an accelerated rate. At the present time the rate of oxidation in the northwest corner is more rapid than the replacement rate. Since the natural hydroperiod has been altered muck fires have been more severe and frequent. These fires destroy existing tree islands which dot the Prior to 1974 WCA-3A received discharges from the waters of the L-1, 2 and 3 borrow canal. The outlet of the canal at L-4 was determined to be inadequate for flood control purposes in the L-1 angle. To increase the discharge rate of the borrow canal culverts G-88 and G-89 were installed at the L-3/L-4 intersection in October of 1974. G-89 directs part of the flow from the L-3 canal into canal L-28 west, and then into pumping station 5-140 and into C- 60 (parallel to Alligator Alley). G-88 directs another part of the flow from the L-3 canal into the L-4 borrow canal and then into S-8 where it is pumped into the Miami canal. Rather than being allowed to flow in a shallow sheet across the water conservation area, the direct water flow is now sent southeast in canals for ultimate discharge outside the area. This waste would be eliminated by the proposal to have C-139 discharge into WCA-3A via C-139(S). There is no dispute that more water is needed annually in the northwest corner of the water conservation area. What is at issue here is the timing of placing additional water there. Generally when there is flooding in the L-1 angle and C-139 would be discharging at its maximum rate there is already flooding in WCA-3A. Rainstorm events are somewhat regional and cover both areas. The applicant estimates that if the volume of water discharged by C-139 in a two-week period were to be instantaneously spread over the northwest corner of WCA-3A 20/ it would raise the water stage by 0.4 feet. This would occur during a one in ten year storm. At that time the wildlife in the water conservation area would already be stressed by high water levels. A 0.4 foot increase in stage could kill deer and other terrestrial animals and destroy alligator nests, but it also could benefit the more aquatic animals. The result of this increase cannot be accurately predicted on the data supplied by the applicant.21/ While expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant were willing to express an opinion that the influx of drainage water from C-139 would be beneficial, the opinions were simplistically based on the unsupported assumption that because WCA-3A currently suffers from overdrainage, any additional water at any time would be beneficial. It is possible that those opinions were based on studies conducted which prove that a discharge of water such as will come from C-139 may create a beneficial increase in the marsh hydroperiod. Unfortunately, no evidence of the existence of such studies is in this record. The applicant's expert witnesses' opinions are therefore given little weight. In the present situation WCA-3A receives some water from the borrow canal during the dry season when additional water is most beneficial. At the expense of overdraining the land west of the borrow canal, ground water seepage now enters the canal and travels south through L-1, 2 and 3. After the construction of S-239, designed to prevent overdrainage, any possible flow into WCA-3A during dry periods will be cut off. No evidence was presented on what quantity of water WCA-3A will lose during a dry season due to S-239. Also the record does not reflect what effect that reduction will have on biota in the water conservation area. S-239 and Fill When the level of water in the borrow canal drops below the nearby water table, there is groundwater seepage laterally into the canal. If C-139 were to be constructed without any water control devices, it would exacerbate the overdrainage because it will be a far more efficient conveyance than is the borrow canal. S-239 has been designed to prevent this overdrainage. The structure will be located in Broward County. On May 22, 1979 the County declined to give its approval of the use of any fill, as the term is used in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, for the construction of this project in Broward County. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not maintained a consistent unwritten policy on what is "fill" in navigable waters of the state.22/ Testimony from past and present Department employees indicated that at times a "use" concept was employed to determine what was fill. If additional dry land were created which would be used for commercial purposes, then the newly created land was called fill which required local approval. At other times use was unimportant. The test was whether or not the result of the additional material would be moving the point, at which the high water mark intersected the land, in a waterward direction. It is found that what constituted fill in past permit cases depended upon the personal interpretation of each Department employee. S-239 as proposed is a massive structure which will cost 1.32 million dollars 23/ to build. It will contain 11,000 cubic yards of fill and backfill; 530 cubic yards of 1' by 1' pieces of stone rip-rap; 1,230 cubic yards of concrete and 647,000 pounds of cement. 153,800 pounds of reinforcing steel will be required. The structure will be over 50 feet high and will span C-139 where it is 60 feet wide. Each of the two vertical lift gates which control the water flow will be 27 feet wide. See Illustration II.* In between them will be a concrete pier three feet wide and approximately 38 feet long. The cement bottom of the structure will rise from an elevation of 8.0 feet MSL to a crest of 3.3 feet MSL for a total height of 11.3 feet. In order to allow service vehicles to pass across the canal a bridge 13 feet wide will span from one bank to the other. This bridge will support large trucks. The stone protection provided for in the plans consists of 1 foot square pieces of rip-rap to be placed 40 feet immediately upstream from the control gates and 30 feet immediately downstream of the gates. The purpose of this protection is to prevent erosion of the canal bottom and sides where the water flows by at a relatively high velocity. The majority of rip-rap will be placed below the ordinary high water mark. Local Water Quality Standards The issue of local water quality standards arose late in the permitting process. DER had already issued two letters of intent to SFWMD before the Department gave consideration to standards promulgated by Broward County. It appears from the record that the Broward County standards were formally brought to DER's attention through the County's Petition for Formal Hearing filed on June 3, 1980. On June 26, 1980, DER issued an amended letter of intent which said: This letter is an amendment of the letter of intent to issue signed by the Department on May 20, 1980. In that letter, the Depart- ment stated: "This intent to issue is contin- gent upon the applicant being granted an exception from the criteria for dis- solved oxygen, for Class III waters, pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code." The preceding paragraph is hereby amended to include a provision that the applicant must obtain relief from the dissolved oxygen stan- dards that appear in Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, through a variance or other legal mechanism, in addition to the exception from state standards for dissolved oxygen. Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, states that DO is to have a "daily average not less than 5 mg/l; single reading never less than 4 mg/l. The May 20, 1980, letter also contained a paragraph that read: "However, should the Department grant an exception from the dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue the permit." This paragraph is hereby stricken and the following paragraph substituted: "If the Department grants an exception from the State dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue a conditional permit which will only become valid upon the granting of relief by Broward County from its existing local standards for dissolved oxygen." The Department is taking this position upon consideration of Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to en- force all stricter or more stringent rules, regulations or orders in the jurisdiction where they apply. It is the Department's position that it is without discretion to grant relief from Broward County's local standard for dis- solved oxygen. By its Petition the County alleged that it has an approved local pollution control program and that the proposed project will violate its local standards for dissolved oxygen and nutrients found in Sections 27-117(b)(9) and 27-117(11) of the Broward County Code.24/ Neither SFWMD nor the Corps has applied to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board for either a license under Chapter 27 of the County Code or for a variance from the standards established therein. On April 20, 1972, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (the predecessor of the Department of Environmental Regulation) gave temporary and conditional approval for six months to the Broward County Pollution Control Program. This approval provided that the County has full authority to enforce its own laws, rules and regulations, provided that they must be as strict or stricter than those of the State. The County was also required to modify its rules if the State subsequently adopted the regulations in conflict with those of the County. On November 7, 1972, the Department of Pollution Control gave Broward County full and final approval pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in 1974 and 1976 the State and Broward County entered into new agreements. These agreements were the result of DER's desire to make uniform all its agreements with all qualified local programs. The Broward County pollution control program including the portion administered by the Environmental Quality Control Board, continues to be an approved local program as defined at Section 403.182, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter an Order denying South Florida Water Management District's application for a water quality permit and for a dredge and fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982. * NOTE: Illustration I, noted in paragraph 8 and Illustration II, noted in paragraph 49 are not a part of this ACCESS document. Illustrationn II is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
The Issue The issue is whether Sarasota County's application for a permit authorizing the construction of a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery well system at the Central County Water Reclamation Facility in Sarasota, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 14, 1999, the County, through its Utilities Department, filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) test well and monitor well system at its Central County Water Reclamation Facility, 79005 South McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. On July 19, 2001, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 160882-001-UC. The permit authorizes the County to construct one test well to determine the feasibility for the storage and recovery of reclaimed water from the Suwannee Limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer system at a depth of between 500 and 700 feet below land surface. Also, the County is authorized to construct three monitor wells, one into the target storage zone, the second into the first overlying transmissive unit, and the last into the overlying Arcadia Formation. The storage capacity of the test well is projected to be between one and two million gallons per day. On August 10, 2001, Petitioner, who is a citizen of the State of Florida, resides in Tallahassee, and is a long- time employee of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., filed her verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) under Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In her Petition, she generally contended that the permitting would have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the water of the State because the proposed injectate (being placed in the well) will not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, may be harmful to human health, and will violate the minimum criteria for groundwater. She also contends that the permit application was not signed by the proper signatory and that the Department failed to require the County to first drill an exploratory well (as opposed to a test well). While these allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner's substantial interests were affected by the proposed permitting, they were deemed sufficient (subject to proof at final hearing) to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Water Reuse Generally Water reuse is the use of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Because of Florida's continuing population growth and occasional water shortage, the use of reclaimed water is an important conservation tool. Indeed, in 2002 the Legislature showed strong support for water conservation and reuse by amending Section 403.064(1), Florida Statutes, and adding language which states that "the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." To this end, the County has filed its application for the purpose of using reclaimed water for such lesser uses as irrigation so that the existing high quality fresh groundwater can be used for higher and better purposes such as drinking water for the general public. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) has also encouraged the use of reclaimed water by providing funding for this type of program to induce utilities to move forward with reuse programs. In addition, the Department has been proactive in promoting the reuse of water throughout the State in order to conserve water resources. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a reuse program encouraged by the Legislature, Department, and District. It involves the storage of water underground in a suitable formation, through a well, during times when water is available to put into the well, and then recovery of that stored water from the well during times when it is needed for some beneficial purpose. Put another way, an ASR operates like an underground storage tank. Water is placed into the ASR wells (by means of pumping) during recharge periods when it is raining and there is no demand for reclaimed water. When the water is pumped into the well, a stored water bubble is created by using buffer zones made of water with more salinity than the stored water. These buffer zones are designed so that there can be full recovery of the stored water. The recovery rate is generally around 100 percent. There are three ways to store reclaimed water: surface ponds, storage tanks, and ASR. The ASR storage method is the most efficient method of storing reclaimed water, and it has significant environmental, utility, and economic benefits. The ASR method has no impact on wetlands and ecosystems, and unlike pond storage (and to a lesser degree storage tanks), it does not require the use of large surface areas and is not affected by evapotranspiration and seepage. (There is typically a 60 percent loss of water due to evaporation in surface storage areas.) It also results in cost savings (up to a 50 percent reduction in capital costs) and avoidance of wetlands impacts. One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to maximize the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Because other storage methods have proved to be inefficient, ASR is the County's preferred storage method to meet this goal. At the time of the final hearing (August 2002), there were at least fifty-six ASR systems operating outside the State of Florida (and around one hundred more in various stages of development) and eleven ASR systems successfully operating in the State, the first one having been established in 1983. At that time, there were also two ASR test programs underway in the area, including one in the Englewood Water District, a few miles to the south of the proposed project, and the Northwest Hillsborough ASR program, which is located just north of the County. Also, ASR systems are located in Manatee County and near the Peace River, which is in the same storage area being proposed here. Therefore, the County has the benefit of drawing upon twenty years of experience with this type of system. The Permit The County began an informal water reuse program in 1988, when it first used effluent disposal for irrigation purposes at a local golf course. A formal program (the Reuse Master Plan) was commenced in 1994; however, the County still lacks the storage capacity to meet the seasonal demands of its reuse customers.3 Without storage, any excess water must be discharged and lost. In order to meet the County's goal of maximizing reclaimed water use, it must be able to adequately store reclaimed water. Due to projected population growth and issues concerning management of limited resources, in 1997 the County began considering the use of ASR as a means to better manage its reclaimed water supply and demand for those facilities which serve the North County Reuse System. If all necessary permits are obtained, the County intends to use reclaimed water from its Central County wastewater facility. Currently, that effluent receives advanced tertiary treatment with deep bed filtration and high level disinfection. The proposed test well will be approximately 700 feet deep; at that depth, the injection (or storage) zone will consist of the Suwannee Limestone formation of the Upper Floridan aquifer system. The storage zone is brackish, with the water quality or salinity having about six times the acceptable degree of salinity for a drinking water source. It is anticipated that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the injection zone will be greater than 3,000 TDS. If water quality at the proposed injection zone is greater than 3,000 TDS, this fact will be revealed during the construction of the test injection well and during the various tests to be conducted during construction. (Assuming this level of TDS is found, then at that point the County would have to provide reasonable assurance that the water reclamation facility is providing full or principal treatment to the domestic waste.) The evidence establishes that there is some level of transmissivity in the confining layer overlying the proposed injection zone. That is to say, there is some small degree of connectivity between the proposed injection zone and the aquifer above it. The actual level of transmissivity will be determined based upon tests run during the construction of the first monitor well. The effluent produced from the County's water reclamation facility meets drinking water standards. If the plant is unable to produce effluent that meets or exceeds the applicable water quality standards, this issue is an operational concern which can be addressed in a permit modification authorizing operational testing. Under the Department's permit process, if the construction permit is approved, the County will construct a monitor well to obtain more site-specific information concerning such things as the geology, hydrology, and water quality at the site. (At this point, while the County has published literature sources and regional geologic information from two nearby ASR systems using the same storage area to rely upon, it has no specific data for the very small parcel where the well will be constructed.) Once the information is obtained, an engineering report is prepared and submitted to the Department. That report contains a wide array of technical data, including construction data, hydrogeologic data, formation samples, water quality samples, hydraulic data, core data, Packer data, and geophysical data. This information is then used by the Department (and a special advisory committee called the Technical Advisory Committee) to evaluate whether the site can be authorized for cycle testing and later for operational purposes. If cycle testing is appropriate, the County must then request a modification to its construction permit to authorize cycle testing of its ASR well. That modification, and any others that may be warranted by the new information, are "final agency action subject to the procedural safeguards contained in Chapter 120, F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(2). When the test injection well is constructed and eventually placed into operation, monitor wells will be used to monitor background water in both the injection zone and in the two aquifers overlying the proposed injection zone. However, until further Department approval is obtained, no injection of reclaimed water is authorized; the permit being sought here authorizes only the construction of the well itself. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.640(1)(a) requires that the County obtain a separate operation permit after the construction permit has been issued and testing completed. Criteria and Standards for a Class V Well Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528 governs all injection wells defined as Class I, III, IV, or V wells. (In Class II wells, the injected fluids are used in connection with oil and natural gas production and are regulated by the Florida Geological Survey under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes.) The category of wells in which the County seeks a permit is a Class V, Group 3 permit, which includes all domestic wastewater wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.300(1)(e)3. A Group 3 well involves the injection of fluids that have been processed through a permitted domestic wastewater treatment plant. Even though the County is requesting a permit for a Class V well, at the request of the Department, it submitted a different (and more stringent) type of application (a "900" application) since the Department has the authority to apply "any of the criteria for Class I wells" if it believes that the well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.605(2). (A Class I well is a well used to inject hazardous waste below the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water.) In this case, the Department opted to apply certain Class I construction standards for the well, in addition to the normal standards for Class V wells. Those standards are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.400. This means that the County will be held to a higher standard than a general underground injection control permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605 contains the Class V well construction standards. For the following reasons, the County has given reasonable assurance that all criteria will be met. Subsection (1) of the rule requires that "a well shall be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction shall be approved by the Department with a permit." The evidence clearly establishes that good engineering practices have been followed by the County for the design and construction of the well. Subsection (2) requires that an applicant design and construct the well so that it will not "cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard . . . or may cause fluids of significantly differing water quality to migrate between underground sources of drinking water." Subsection (3) is also directed at the migration of fluids. The evidence shows that the migration of fluids between aquifers will be prevented as a part of the design and construction of the ASR well program. The design chosen by the County has been proven to prevent migration of fluids between aquifers, and it will preserve the integrity of the confining beds. The combination of steel casing and cementing prevents the migration of fluids along the borehole. The well will be constructed by a Florida licensed contractor, as required by Subsection (4). The remaining criteria in the rule will be satisfied during the construction process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.620 contains reporting requirements for Class V wells. All of these requirements are included in the draft permit and will be met by the County. The Department has also included Special Condition 1(h) in the draft permit, which provides that nothing will be injected into the well that does not meet the Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard. This condition is drawn from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.307, which specifies general conditions to be included in underground injection control permits. In accordance with this condition, the County will monitor the movement of fluid to ensure that there are no violations. The County has also demonstrated that there will be no hazardous waste injection, as prohibited by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.600(1)(a). Finally, the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.630(3) do not apply at this time since the proposed permit is only for construction of a well, and not the injection of water. Class I Well Construction Standards Because the Department has imposed more stringent construction standards on the County, the Class I well construction standards found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(1) come into play. The County has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirement that the well be cemented and cased. In addition, the County has considered corrosion protection in the cementing and casing of the proposed well. Because the casing will be cemented, coating is not required. Finally, there will be no open annulus (spacing between the casings and the bore hole) in the ASR test well. Other Requirements Drilling Geophysical surveys will be conducted during the pilot hole drilling stages to collect hydrogeologic information. Further, drill stem tests will be conducted throughout the drilling, and a driller's log will be maintained. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.410(3). Casing Steel casing will be used, taking into consideration the possible corrosion of steel. The life expectancy of the well was considered, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(4)(a), and was determined to be unknown. Cement Type 2 cement will be used, which is sulfate resistant and is specifically designed for use in regions such as Florida. Testing Geophysical logs will be used during the construction and testing of the well to verify the physical conditions of the well and confirm that construction is proceeding according to the plan. Also, geophysical surveys will be conducted during pilot hole drilling stages to collect subsurface hydrogeologic information. Environmental concerns Once a drilling contractor is selected, the location for the disposal of drilling fluids will be submitted for Department approval in accordance with Special Condition 1(b) in the draft permit. Monitor well construction standards The monitor well will meet all construction requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.420. (The same standards that are applied to Class V wells are also applied to monitor wells.) General design considerations Exploratory pilot hole drilling stages will be conducted to collect hydrogeologic information, and complete sets of geophysical surveys will be performed. Because cement generates heat, temperature surveys will be run as a part of the construction sequence to verify coverage of the cement. This means that tools will be lowered into the hole after each cementing stage to verify coverage. Monitoring requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(d) requires that an applicant perform "a demonstration of mechanical integrity . . . at least once every five years during the life of the well." Details to accomplish this are found in both the application and the draft permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(f) requires that the background water quality of the injection zone and monitoring zone be determined prior to injection. The County will perform this task before injection occurs. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(g) requires that monitor wells be installed above the injection zone near the project. The County will construct three wells, as required by the rule. They will also be placed at a sufficient distance from the project, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(h), and the specific monitoring intervals are detailed in the draft permit. Reporting requirements The Department requires periodic data reports and progress reports regarding eight separate types of information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.430(1)(a). These reporting requirements will be performed and followed. Because a Class V well may be required to be plugged and abandoned, the Department requires a plugging and abandonment report. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.625. All requirements under this rule have been met, and the County has the financial resources to accomplish this task, when required. General Class I permitting requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440 sets forth general permitting requirements for Class I and III wells. Because the Department has opted to impose certain Class I criteria on the County's application, some of the criteria in this rule apply. They include special conditions 1(a), (c), and (e) in the permit for well construction, system modification, and fluid injection, all of which have been, or will be, met by the County. In addition, the duration for the operation permit cannot exceed five years, and the County was required to submit an application for a permit which conformed with the requirements of the rule. As a part of its application, the County established an area of review for the construction permit, taking into account the zone of endangering influence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(4). (An area of review is the area surrounding an injection well, including the area of possible endangering influence.) This requirement was met because the established area of review is one mile even though the predicted area of influence is expected to be no more than 400 feet. As a part of the preceding analysis, the County also conducted an area of review study, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440(6)(a). In doing so, the County evaluated the impact on the ASR well, and the impact the ASR well would have on the surrounding area. That evaluation determined that there are no water supply wells within the area of review. Because the construction permit only has a duration of five years, and given the County's supporting information submitted with the area of influence study, the Department has not required that the County provide a corrective action plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(5)(a). Class I well construction permit criteria All guidelines for constructing the well have been followed, and the construction of the well will not be a source of pollution. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will function in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62- 528. Hydrological modeling Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.405 specifies criteria for evaluating the geologic and hydrologic environment of Class I wells. The County has satisfied all criteria in the rule. Other Issues Exploratory well Petitioner contends that the Department should require the County to construct an exploratory well, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.603(1), rather than a test well. That rule defines an exploratory well as one being "drilled for the specific purpose of obtaining information to determine the feasibility of underground injection at the proposed site." However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.450(1)(b) requires an exploratory well only "for those projects located in an area where available information is lacking concerning geologic or hydraulic confinement or existing information indicates that geologic or hydraulic confinement may be poor or lacking." For example, an exploratory well would be required in a remote area (such as certain parts of Polk County) where the Department had insufficient literature, studies, or prior history concerning the general geology across and around the site. In this case, two nearby ASR systems are located in the Englewood Water District and near the Peace River and use the same storage zone as that proposed by the County. Those systems have been operating for a number of years, and the County and Department can draw upon that experience. Given this significant regional geologic information, an exploratory well is not required. More importantly, the requirement for an exploratory well applies only to Class I well construction, and not Class V wells, and the Department properly exercised its discretion to not apply that requirement to the County's Class V application. Signature on the application and other documents Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.340(1)(c) requires that all permit applications by a local government be signed by "either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official." Also, subsection (2) of the same rule requires that "reports required by permits and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described in subsection (1) of this section [a principal executive officer or the highest ranking elected official], or by a duly authorized representative of that person." Petitioner contends that these requirements were not met. The County's application was signed by James E. Caldwell, who was then the Manager of Sarasota County Utilities. At that time, Mr. Caldwell had overall responsibility for the County's utility operations. On August 27, 2002, James L. Ley, the County Administrator (and principal executive officer of the County), also executed the original copy of the application. (That is, on that date he signed the original application underneath Mr. Caldwell's signature.) By doing so, Mr. Ley cured any previous technical deficiency in the application. Responses to requests for additional information which were submitted to the Department during the review process were signed by one of the County's outside consultants. However, on January 13, 2002, Mr. Ley submitted a letter to the Department authorizing various County employees and agents to act on his behalf in processing the instant application. Accordingly, the outside consultant was a duly-authorized representative of the chief executive and was authorized to sign those documents. Satisfaction of injection criteria Petitioner also contends that before a construction permit may be issued, the County must meet all principal treatment and disinfection requirements, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.466 and 62-528.563. However, those rules apply to permits which authorize the injection of reclaimed water into the groundwater. Here, the requested permit does not authorize injection, and therefore those requirements do not apply. Groundwater criteria Even though Petitioner conceded at hearing that the issue of whether the construction of the proposed wells would harm the environment was not raised in her Petition, the County provided reasonable assurance that this was not an issue of concern. Adequacy of permit conditions Petitioner also suggested at hearing that the proposed conditions in the permit are insufficient. However, she failed to show in what respect they were insufficient or how they should be amended. Water quality concerns Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605(3) requires that a Class V well be constructed so that its intended use does not violate the applicable water quality standards. On this issue, the evidence establishes that the construction of the proposed test well and monitor system will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. Indeed, a well and monitor station does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed according to the technical requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528, does not cause pollution. Therefore, the County's compliance with the technical requirements of the Department's regulations is reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not cause pollution. I. Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theory that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party who has participated for a "frivolous, meritless, and improper purpose" within the meaning of Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. This argument is based on the assertion that Petitioner is a non- prevailing party, that is, she failed to substantially change the outcome of the proposed final agency action which is the subject of this proceeding, and she "failed to produce any witnesses or evidence to support [her] claim that the proposed permit that was the subject of this proceeding should not be issued." While it is true that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party, she attempted to utilize the testimony of three expert witnesses previously retained by the City of Venice, a former party in Case No. 01-3516. Those subpoenas, however, were quashed on August 16, 2002, and that ruling was memorialized in an Order dated August 19, 2002, or just before the final hearing began. Without those witnesses, Petitioner's presentation was obviously limited in some respects.4 Further, until the final hearing, Petitioner assumed that evidence in support of her allegation that the injectate would harm the water quality would be admissible and relevant. (As this Recommended Order clearly points out, however, not a single drop of water can be injected into the well until a modification of the permit is obtained, and therefore such evidence is irrelevant.) During the course of the hearing, the undersigned sustained objections by the County and Department to the introduction of such evidence. This ruling had the effect of limiting the scope of the issues to be tried. Despite these limitations, her participation cannot be described as being frivolous or meritless, as claimed by the County, and it is found that she did not participate for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Permit No. 160882-001- UC authorizing the County to construct one Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery injection well and monitor well system in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Gate Petroleum Company (Gate) has provided reasonable assurances that Water Quality Standards will not be violated by the proposed modification of Gate's dredge and fill permit No. 160462149 and whether Gate has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification of that permit will not be contrary to the public interest, nor be the occasion of adverse cumulative impacts to water quality or public interest considerations so as to make this project contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gate Petroleum Company, by and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., proposes to construct a ship- berthing facility for two ships adjacent to Blount Island Channel, along the southeastern portion of Blount Island, in the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The proposed facility would provide for the berthing of two ships of the United States Navy Military Sea-Lift Command in conjunction with the mission of the Navy's Rapid Deployment Force. The proposed facility would be located along the southeasterly portion of "Cut A" of the Blount Island Channel and will consist of a "T-head Pier", a breasting dolphin and cat walk and two mooring dolphins. The pier would be connected to the land by an approach trestle. The facility involved will be constructed by the insertion of concrete pilings into the bottom of the Blount Island Channel and in the adjacent upland, which would support concrete decks and caps. Removal of dredged material will be necessary to accomplish the project and will be performed by a floating hydraulic dredge with associated "Cutter Head." The resulting dredged material would be disposed of in a diked spoil area on either Blount Island or at the Dayson Spoil Site adjacent to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. The Respondent Gate currently holds a DER dredge and fill permit, No. 160462149, authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged spoil and the installation of an associated 5,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead. The proposed installation of the pier and mooring facilities would result in a modification of that permit so that approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead and most of the related dredging will be unnecessary and not performed. Instead, approximately 7,100 cubic yards of dredging would be necessary, without the necessity for bulkheading. The remaining shoreline bulkhead and dredging authorized under the above permit would be rendered unnecessary and replaced by the addition of two additional T-head piers and associated dredging at some indefinite time in the future. The additional piers and dredging are not involved in this permit modification application and are not before the Hearing Officer at this time. The Blount Island Channel of the St. Johns River, the St. Johns River and Clapboard Creek are classified as Class III surface waters of the state pursuant to Sections 17-3.081 and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. It has been established by stipulation of the parties that the proposed modification of the dredge and fill permit will not adversely affect navigation nor the flow of water in the Class III state waters involved. It is also stipulated that the proposed modification will not adversely affect historical and archaeological resources pursuant to Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. It is stipulated as well that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson spoil site will not violate water quality standards at the point of discharge in the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. On March 22, 1989, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation issued its intent to approve the proposed permit modification so as to allow the elimination of the previous requirement in the permit to monitor for copper at the site of the effluent discharge; the relocation of the Blount Island spoil site effluent discharge and the construction of a T-head pier on the southeast side of Blount Island adjacent to the Blount Island Channel. The Department did not initially grant the request to relocate the Dayson spoil site effluent discharge from the Corps of Engineer Channel (Dames Point Cut) to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. On January 31, 1986, Gate was issued permit No. 160462149, pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, with an expiration date of January 31, 1991. It authorizes the dredging and filling on and adjacent to Blount Island referenced above. The permit authorizes those operations in two phases, consisting of new dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards in the existing slipway and test area to obtain a project depth of 40.2 feet mean low water. Maintenance dredging was authorized in the amount of approximately 1,850,000 cubic yards in the slipway to maintain the above-noted project depth. New dredging of no more than 3 million cubic yards from the northeastern and southern margins of Blount Island to a depth of 38 feet mean low water (MLW) and 20 feet MLW on the northeastern and southern portions of Blount Island respectively, with attendant maintenance dredging, was authorized. The permit also allowed he construction of shoreline bulkheads along the eastern and southern margins of Blount Island. That 1986 permit also required disposal of dredged material from both phases of the project into diked areas on Blount Island and the existing diked off-site disposal area known as the Dayson Site, near the mouth of Clapboard Creek. Effluent from both sites was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. Effluent from the Dayson site was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut or routed by pipeline to the Blount Island disposal site for additional treatment prior to discharge. All dredging under the 1986 permit was to be done via a suction, cutter-head dredge apparatus, with the speed of the cutter-head to be controlled so as to prevent excessive turbidity; and with all dredged material to be placed in diked areas, with the effluent discharge being conducted over adjustable weirs. The dredging of the approximately 7,100 cubic yards of material associated with the modification application at issue will be performed with the same type of equipment. Both spoil disposal sites have sufficient capacity for disposal of the material involved with the construction of the T-head pier. The effluent or "de-watering water" generated from the disposal of the dredged material at the Dayson on site will be discharged through a pipe under the St. Johns River to a point near the confluence of the Dames Point Cut and the Old River Channel. That material will consist of approximately 10 percent dredged solid material and 90 percent water. The Dayson disposal site is surrounded by dikes 24 feet high and 120 feet wide at their base. They are so constructed that there will be no discharge of effluent from the Dayson disposal site to Clapboard Creek. Since 1974, over four and one-half million cubic yards of material have been disposed of at the Days on site without any violation of state water quality standards in the creek or the adjacent salt marsh. The entire 7,100 cubic yards of dredged material, together with related water could be placed in the Dayson disposal site without causing any discharge. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. has a five-year lease agreement with Leadermar, Inc. which will operate the T-head pier as a berthing facility for the two ships. The lease was scheduled to commence July 22, 1989. Under the terms of the contract awarded by the Navy to Leadermar, Inc., Gate, or its lessee, is required to maintain a 110 foot, safe working area surrounding the vessels for operation of tugs, lighterage vessels and fendering operations. The contract with the Navy does not require, however, that the safe working area be maintained at a depth of minus 32 feet "mean lower low water" as shown by Gate Exhibit 6 in evidence. 1/ Given the findings made infra., concerning the lack of adverse water quality or public interest impacts caused by the dredging, and the paucity of any attendant suspension of bottom materials in the operation of the ships to be berthed at the proposed facility, the issue of whether the contract with the Navy requires a depth of minus 32 feet "mean low water" or "mean low low water", a reputed difference of 1.03 inches according to the rebuttal exhibit of Respondent Gate, neither Gate's position nor the Navy's reputed position regarding this apparent contractual dispute item, if carried out, would have any adverse water quality or public interest impact in the context referenced in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact remains that Gate has applied for authority to recede from the massive dredging project presently authorized in the existing permit, to stipulate by this modification application that it only seeks to dredge 7,100 cubic yards of material in the area involved. Based upon the depth established by the marine survey conducted by Bennett, Wattels and Associates, there will be an adequate safe working area for tug boats, fuel barges and lighterage vessels, as well as the ships themselves, for operations involving the berthing facilities. See Gate Exhibit 5 in evidence. If the requested modification is granted, Gate will not dredge more than 7,100 cubic yards of material for construction of the pier and related facilities and in order to provide a safe working area as required under Leadermars contract with the Navy. Indeed the amount of material to be dredged for the construction and operation of the T-head pier was based upon the above- referenced Marine survey, unrefuted evidence in this record. The volume of material was calculated by using the Marine Survey depths and the "average end area method," a widely accepted method of such calculation in the marine engineering and construction field. Further, Gate adduced the only substantial evidence in this record concerning the issue of the amount of dredging involved or the extent of the dredged area, as that relates to the "safe working area" and other issues. Water Quality Gates' consulting experts performed various chemical and sediment analyses in the project area in order to establish a general composition of bottom sediments and to establish the likelihood of suspension of any toxic substances or pollutants in those sediments as a result of the dredging operation or the operation of the ships and berthing facilities. Those analyses, and their results, in evidence in this record, were unrefuted. The bottom sediments in the vicinity of the project area are predominantly fine sand with small fractions of silt. In general, the dredged material is most likely to be free from chemical or biological pollutants where it is composed of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert materials, as opposed to large percentages of organic materials, which were not shown to exist in the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the characteristics of the bottom sediments in the project area, there will be no re-entrainment of toxins or pollutants which night presently be sequestered in the sediments due to construction, dredging operations or the operations of the berthing facility and ships involved. An elutriate test was performed to predict the effect on water quality from temporary suspension of the bottom sediments during the dredging operation itself. Elutriate testing is a widely recognized, conservative estimate of contaminant releases, caused by dredging, into a water column. The parameters tested for are those specified in the Department's rules for Class III waters and include cyanide, mercury, silver cadmium, selenium, barium, beryllium, nitrogen, (unionized NH3, NO2, total TKN), fluoride, copper, iron, nickel, zinc, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The elutriate test results did not reveal any excess ion of any of these parameters in terms of the state water quality standards or as to prevailing natural background levels. There are no PCBs, hydrocarbons, heavy metals or pesticides shown to be sequestered in the bottom sediments of the Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. The chemical analyses was performed on composite elutriate samples of sediments which came from the area of the T- head pier location and the area north of the pier, where the propellers of the ships will be located and operated during test trials, after the ships are berthed at the site. Site specific chemical analyses and core borings were taken and compared with historical data or studies for these sites and found to be consistent with them. There is no likelihood of sequestered contaminants in the bottom sediments which would be released, with deleterious effect on water quality, as a result of the action of the dredge equipment or the operation of the ships after the facility is installed. Cutter-head, hydraulic pipeline dredges are not significant generators of turbidity. They are an efficient means of performing dredging and are designed to loosen and remove material from the bottom substrate, without disturbing or redistributing the dredged material around the dredge apparatus in the water column. The use of the hydraulic pipeline dredge will result in minimal water quality disturbance and any dredge-induced turbidity will be of a transitory, short-term nature. It would be localized in the immediate vicinity of the dredge's cutterhead in any event. Ambient water quality conditions can be expected to return to normal background levels in a matter of hours following cessation of the dredging activity. It is estimated by Gate's consultant witnesses that the dredging activity might be accomplished in approximately one day. It has thus been established that the relevant stage water quality standards will not be violated by the action of the dredging equipment and the dredging operation itself. Water Quality Impacts of Facility Operation The two ships of the military sealift command which are to be berthed at the proposed T-head pier are 948 feet in length and approximately 105 feet in beam. They are equipped with two main engines and two propellers. The propellers are 22 feet, 11 and 9/16 inches in diameter. The ships will be in what is known as "reserved operating status". The ships will go through a dry- docking procedure at a local shipyard approximately every two years for major overhauls, repairs and painting. Such maintenance work will not be performed at the project site. The ships will, however, undergo periodic "dock trials" while berthed at the facility. The dock trials will be conducted on a quarterly basis if the vessels have not been out on a mission in that quarter of the year. The dock trial procedure calls for the main propulsion powerplants of the ships to be put into operation and evaluated. Both main engines are tested under this procedure for approximately one hour, at ten revolutions per minute (rpm) ahead and astern. The tests are to be conducted by civilian personnel retained by the Navy or its contractor, with all appropriate safety precaution being taken. These include, but are not limited to, the manning of the bridge during tests by a master or chief mate and by rotating one engine ahead simultaneously with the other engine being rotated astern. The ships are also equipped with onboard, internal sewage treatment plants so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Only routine maintenance or repair work will be performed on the ships at the lay birth facility. The ships will be refueled at the facility from time to time with "bunker c" or diesel fuel brought in by barges. The barges will be conveyed by tugboats of no more than 16 feet draft. The fueling operation will be governed by the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and are performed by Coast Guard certified and licensed personnel. Dr. Neal Boehnke was accepted as an expert in the field of chemical analysis of water and testified on behalf of the Petitioner. In his opinion, water quality in the facility of the proposed project is poor and may contain elevated hydrocarbon levels. His opinions, however, are based upon 1982 and 1983 reports of sampling results allegedly obtained by the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Division and the DER, as well as the study entitled "Survey of Hydrocarbons and the Lower St. Johns River in Jacksonville." These documents were not introduced into evidence. While it is true that an expert may base his opinion on facts and data made known to him in the normal course of his practice at or before trial and that those facts or data may be relied upon by him in formulating his opinions, it must be demonstrated that those facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed." See Section 90.704, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, it was not established by competent evidence or testimony at hearing that the facts or data derived from these documents were of such a type as to be encompassed by this statutory section and thus they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for Dr. Boehnke's opinion. They otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay, not sufficient to support a finding of fact on the water quality impacts from the proposed project and they do not constitute corroborative or explanatory hearsay related to any accepted, competent, substantial evidence in this record for purposes of the hearsay admissibility provision in Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Dr. Loehnke's opinion concerning alleged elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the water at the project site is not credited and is rejected. Dr. Allan Niedororda was accepted as an expert in the fields of oceanography, hydrology and hydrologic assessment. He conducted a study on the potential impact to water quality in the Blount Island Channel which might result from the dock trials to be carried out as a part of the routine maintenance and testing of the ships. His study evaluated the degree to which the propeller wash from the dock trials might entrain and transport bottom sediments, any related pollutants and the effect of this entrainment on water quality in the surrounding water column. His study consisted of field sampling and measurements of currents in the area, laboratory analysis and related data analysis. Bottom sediment samples from the project area were analyzed for particle size and grain size distribution according to standard, scientifically accepted procedures. The bottom sediments in the area of the project site are characterized by a sandy sediment of a fine to medium particle size characteristic. The bottom sediments largely consist of clean sand and small gravels, with some silt composition. The propeller wash which will be generated by the testing of the ships engines was computed to have a speed of approximately one half foot per second. Maximum speed will occur about three propeller diameters behind the plane of the propeller itself or about 72 feet behind the propellers. The bottom tip of the propeller with which the ships are equipped will be six feet off the bottom of the channel at low tide. At the point the propeller wash contacts the bottom, its speed will be approximately two tenths of a foot per second. Such a velocity will not be of sufficient force to produce such sheer stress on the bottom sediments as to entrain them or, that is, to displace them upward into the water column. Dr. Niedororda established that, even if the propeller wash is added to the natural velocity of the water currents at the project site, there would be no entrainment of the bottom sediments which he sampled in the project area. It has also been established that the routine, minor maintenance of the ships and dockage facilities involved in the permit application and the fueling and other operations associated with the berthing, testing, entry and egress of the ships from the proposed berthing facility will occasion no water quality violations, so long as appropriate Coast Guard regulations attendant to fueling and the prevention of the deposition of refuse and other wastes into the waters involved are observed. Any grant of the proposed permit modifications should be conditioned upon the strict observance of those regulations and procedures, especially with regard to the potential for spillage during fueling operations. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes provides that a permit may not be issued unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether this is the case, the Department must consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061; The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It has been established by stipulation that the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water and that the project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Unrefuted evidence adduced by Gate and the Department have established that the project will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, welfare or the property of others, if the project is constructed, installed and operated as proposed in the modification application and as proved in this case. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, as well as fishing and recreational values and marine productivity in the project area will not be adversely affected. No harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the installation or operation of the project facility. In this connection, Dr. A. Quinton White, a member of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner, C.E.S., acknowledged in his testimony that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program proposed to be inaugurated by Gate will adequately protect any Manatees frequenting the area. Manatees are an endangered species, but it has been established that the permit modification proposed, if installed and operated, will not adversely affect the conservation of Manatees or their habitat. The Petitioner adduced no evidence on this issue or any of the public interest criteria enumerated above. The area at the project site is characterized by fairly firm consolidated bottom substrata, characterized by very few submerged grasses. Due to the sandy, hard bottom in the project vicinity, there is a paucity of marine grass upon which Manatee could feed. Consequently, Manatees do not and are not likely to frequent the area involved at the project site as that might reflect on the likelihood of their injury or destruction due to operation of the ships and any attendant vessels. Dr. Niedoroda established that the project and the attendant operations of the ships will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling and witness Gary Tourtellotte, testifying for Gate, established that the effects of the construction and operation of the T-head pier on the benthic community and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project will not induce any adverse effect on those elements of the public interest standards involved. The Petitioner offered no credible or credited evidence of equivalent value which could contradict the evidence adduced by Gate on this aspect of the public interest standards. It is true that dredging of the bottom substrata will temporarily eliminate the benthic community within the dredged area itself. It was established by expert testimony, however, that the benthic community will rapidly re-colonize itself with similar organisms to a naturally occurring degree within approximately 6-12 months. The benthic community in the project vicinity is of a low density nature, with a low diversity of organisms. Those organisms occurring in the project site area are estuarine, marine benthic species commonly associated with sandy or silty bottom substrates. Because the area to be dredged is quite small or approximately .25 acres, and the dredging operations will be of short duration, approximately one day, the dredging operations will not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic communities occurring in the project area or in the adjacent St. Johns River. The dredging associated with the project will likewise not have a significant long-term adverse impact on fisheries resources or marine productivity of the Blount Island Channel or the St. Johns River. This is because the area to be dredged is minimal in size and does not contain critical marine benthic habitat. The turbidity generated will be minimal because the sediments are predominantly coarse sands and gravels. Because of this, any turbidity occasioned by the installation and operation of the proposed facility will be very brief and not of a sufficient significance as to violate water quality standards. In view of the hydrologic analysis in evidence concerning propeller wash effects, the bottom sediments at the ship mooring area will not be entrained or suspended in the water column to any significant degree due to propeller operation of the ships. Thus the benthic community in the mooring area for the ships will not be disturbed due to currents created by the operation of the propellers. In a similar vein, it has been shown that the dredging and operation of the T-head pier and mooring facilities, including the attendant conduct of periodic dock trials and the entry and egress of the ships will not violate the water quality criteria for biological integrity. Indeed, the periodic dock trials are shown to have no impact on the benthic community, the fisheries or marine habitat involved at the project site. It was neither shown that the dredging associated with the construction of the pier and berthing facilities will have any adverse impact on fin fish or shellfish in the project area. It has been established that the project will be of a permanent nature, but it has not been established that the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity in terms of their functions as productive marine habitat, as furnishing fishing or recreational values and the like, will be adversely affected by the proposed project and attendant activity. Deletion of Copper Monitoring Requirement The 1986 permit authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million yards of dredged material with attendant extensive bulkheading in the Blount Island Channel requires also that Gate Monitor for copper every two weeks during discharges at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone for each point of a effluent discharge. Effluent from both the Blount Island and Dayson Disposal Sites is discharged into the Fulton Dames Point Cut. The Petitioner has stipulated that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson Spoils Site will not violate any water quality standard at that discharge point. Elutriate testing and other analyses submitted in support of the permit modification request to delete the copper monitoring requirement in the present permit have shown that there will be no violation of water quality standards as to copper, or any of the other water quality parameters involved due to any re-suspenions of bottom sediment during dredging. There will be no violation of water quality standards for copper, caused by the deposition of spoil, consisting of those bottom sediments, and the draining of effluent from the spoils site into the Dames Point Cut. The Department has independently verified the data submitted by Gate as a result of this testing and it has been established that there is no occurrence of any man induced pollutants in the sediments at the project site which will be deposited in the spoil site, (from which the effluent will be disposed of in the Dames Point Cut) which represents any elevation over natural background levels. The sediments to be dredged from the berthing area are not distinguishable from naturally occurring sediments and the copper values in the sediments to be dredged are no higher than those naturally occurring throughout the area. Thus there will be no adverse impact on the water quality occasioned by discharge of the effluent from the spoil site to the Dames Point Cut area due to copper occurring in the sediments or as to any of the other pollutants enumerated above. Thus, there has been no demonstrated necessity to continue monitoring the effluent from the spoil site for copper. In this regard, the Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing concerning the issue of whether copper monitoring should be continued or not. Cumulative Impact Blount Island was created in the 1950's and 1960's by the filling of its area with spoil material during the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' construction of the Fulton-Dames Point Cut-Off Channel. Since that time, port facilities and an industrial complex have been constructed on Blount Island. It is one of the principle port facilities for the City of Jacksonville. Under the 1982 DER dredge and fill permit issued to Off-Shore Power Systems, and later transferred to Gate in 1986, the developed area of the island adjacent to the original St. Johns River Channel (the Blount Island Channel) was required to be bulk-headed and the channel dredged to -38 feet MLW. The amount of material to be dredged in the old channel of the St. Johns River for construction of the vertical shoreline bulk head totalled approximately 3.4 cubic yards. The T-head pier involved in this modification proceeding, if constructed, would replace 1,000 linear feet of that shoreline bulkhead authorized by the present permit and would substantially reduce the amount or quantity of material to be dredged. Construction of the T-head pier, instead of the permitted shoreline bulkhead, will minimize dredging and the environmental impact of the facility. Gate has elected to rescind its plans to construct the shoreline bulkhead along the eastern shore of Blount Island, as authorized under the existing dredge and fill permit. Gate instead intends to seek future modification of its existing dredge and fill permit to substitute at least 2 additional T-head piers for all of the shoreline bulk head authorized for the eastern shore of Blount Island. The construction of the additional T-head piers will require substantially less dredging than is authorized under the existing permit. Instead of the 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged material authorized under the existing permit, associated with installation of the shoreline bulkhead, the amount of material to be dredged, if indeed 2 additional T-head piers were applied-for and constructed, would amount to only 269,000 estimated cubic yards, as opposed to the originally authorized 3.4 million. Kevin Pope, the DER witness, established that there are no other projects in the area, or reasonably expected to be located in the project area, which would create impacts in addition to or cumulative with the proposed permit modification project so as to create adverse water quality impacts or which would make this project, because of cumulative impact, contrary to the public interest. There are no other dredge and fill projects in the area of the proposed T-head pier which would adversely impact the waters of the Blount Island Channel and the St. Johns River. The proposed modifications are shown not to likely cause any adverse environmental results and, in fact, will result in an environmental benefit as represented by the agreed-upon recession from the extensive dredging and bulkheading authorized by the present permit. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioner to contravene that adduced by Gate and the Department, which establishes the lack of any adverse cumulative impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project, both as to water quality standards and the public interest standards involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving the proposed modification to permit number 160462149 with the proviso that the conditions contained in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law be incorporated as specific conditions in the modified permit, including the additional condition agreed to at Final Hearing that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program will be inaugurated and be incorporated as a specific condition in the modified permit. DONE and ENTERED this 11th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 October, 1989.
