The Issue This case involves a challenge to St. Johns River Water Management District’s (District or SJRWMD) intended issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, for the construction and operation of a surface water management system for a retrofit flood-relief project known as Drysdale Drive/Chapel Drive Drainage Improvements consisting of: excavation of the Drysdale Drive pond (Pond 1); improvement to the outfall at Sterling Lake; and the interconnection of Pond 1 and four existing drainage retention areas through a combination of pump stations and gravity outfalls (project or system). The issue is whether the applicant, the City of Deltona (City or Deltona), has provided reasonable assurance the system complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations set forth in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code,1 and the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005) (A.H.).2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to the City of Deltona an ERP granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 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 17th day of March, 2006.
Conclusions On May 11, 2007, the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH’) submitted a _ Recommended Order (“RO”) to the Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) i in . these consolidated proceedings. Copies of the RO were served upon the Petitioners, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Peter A. Lane, (“Lane Petitioners”); Friends of Perdido Bay,.Inc., and James A. Lane (“FOPB”); and the Co-Respondent, International Paper Company (“IP” ). On May 29, 2007, all Petitioners and Respondent IP filed Exceptions to the RO. Respondent DEP filed Exceptions to the RO and Motion for Remand. ; On June 8, 2007, the FOPB filed a Reply to IP’s Exceptions and a Response to DEP’s Motion for Remand and Exceptions. The Lane Petitioners filed their Response to iP’s and DEP’s Exceptions. Respondent DEP filed Responses to the Exceptions filed . by the FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and IP. Respondent IP filed Responses to the Exceptions of FOPB, the Lane Petitioners and DEP. This matter is now before me for. final agency action. . _ BACKGROUND » Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in. 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis” ) acquired the mill in 1946. In 4984, Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such a as printing and writing grades c of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to | be printing and writing paper. ' The mill s wastewater effluent i is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is . sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class I water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama, on the west. The dividing line between ‘the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 98 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is-often referred to as the “Upper Bay” and “Lower Bay.” The Bay is relatively shallow, especially | in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay i is designated asa Class ill water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. Itis primarily a freshwater river but itis sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW’) in 11979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, isa large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract, The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern partis a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. | ' Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued St. Regis a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES") permit i in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its wastewater treatment plant (‘WWTP’) in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production - process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit-for its modified WWITP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class iI water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's . subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged. In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for the operating permit and requested a . temporary operating permit ("TOP"), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 (‘the 1989 Consent Order’). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violations of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (“DO”), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommend measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed bya series of related scientific studies, which are referred to collectively in the RO as “the Livingston studies.” The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, , which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1 994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with . Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. - In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1 995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal ‘operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FLO002526-002-IWF/MT. During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmiie Creek or the Escambia River. . In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WwTP upgrades consist of converting toa. modified activated sludge treatment process, incteasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (‘MGD’). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by-pipeline 10.7 miles to the 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP (contained within-the larger Rainwater Tract), where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and Upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to: reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department published notice of its intent fo issue a proposed permit, consent order, experimental wetland exemption, and waiver. The — Department authorizations would allow IP to change its industrial wastewater treatment system at the mill, construct an effluent distribution system within the wetland tract, construct the 10.7-mile pipeline to transport its treated wastewater to the wetlands, and discharge the treated wastewater into the wetlands. In April 2005, Mellita A. Lane, Jacqueline M. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane (“Lane Petitioners”) filed identical petitions challenging the Department authorizations on numerous grounds. The Department forwarded the petitions to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Lane Petitioners subsequently amended their petitions. In May 2005, Friends of Perdido Bay, Inc., and James Lane filed a petition for | hearing to challenge the Department authorizations. The FOPB petition was forwarded to DOAH and the pending cases were consolidated for the fi nal hearing. The FOPB petition was subsequently amended. In October 2005, while the cases were pending, IP applied for a revision to its NPDES permit renewal application. The cases were abated so that the DEP could review and act on the permit revision. In January 2006, DEP issued a proposed revised | NPDES permit and a corresponding First Amendment to Consent Order. On July 26, 2006, the Department filed without objection a revision to the Consent Order. On July 31, 2006, the Department filed Joint Trial Exhibit 18 that integrated the Consent Order dated April 12, 2005, the First Amendment to Consent Order dated January 11, 2006, and the Department’s Notice of Minor Revision {o Consent Order filed on July 26, 2006. The DOAH Administrative Law Judge CALL") held a lengthy final hearing in these consolidated cases on May 31, June 1, 2, and.26 through 30, and July 17, 27, and 28, 2006. Prior to the hearing, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Hearing sit on May 24, 2006. The ALJ subsequenty submitted his RO on May 11, 2007. -
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(47)(b) of the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department"), referred to as the "narrative nutrient rule," is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether certain proposed rules of the Department, which amend Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-302, entitled “Surface Water Quality Standards” and 62-303, entitled “Identification of Impaired Surface Waters,” are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation ("FWF"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. FWF has approximately 14,000 members throughout the State. Its mission includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and its fish and wildlife habitat. Petitioner Sierra Club, Inc., is a non-profit public benefit corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. It has approximately 30,000 members living in Florida. Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect wilderness and to educate the public to protect and restore the quality of the environment. Petitioner, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc., is a Florida non-profit corporation with its primary place of business in Naples, Florida. It has approximately 6,000 members residing in Florida. The Conservancy is devoted to protecting the land, water, and wildlife of Southwest Florida. Petitioner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida (“ECOSWF”), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its primary place of business in Sarasota, Florida. ECOSWF has approximately 50 members consisting of other organizations and individuals living in Southwest Florida. ECOSWF focuses its efforts on protecting the environment of Southwest Florida, including Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. Petitioner, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc., is a Florida non-profit corporation with its primary place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. St. Johns Riverkeeper has over 1,000 members who use and enjoy the waters of the St. Johns River watershed for boating, fishing, and observing birds and other wildlife. A substantial number of the members of each of the Petitioners use and enjoy water bodies throughout the state for a variety of purposes, including wading, walking, swimming, canoeing, sailing, sport boating, wildlife observation, photography, personal and commercial research, sport and commercial fishing, and collecting aquatic life for personal and commercial consumption. The Department is the state agency authorized under section 403.061(10) and (11), Florida Statutes, to establish water quality standards. The Department is also authorized under section 403.067(3) to adopt assessment methodologies for determining whether water quality criteria are being attained in a particular waterbody. Intervenors, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc., Environmental Committee, Florida League of Cities, Florida Pulp & Paper Association, Environmental Affairs, Inc.. Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Inc., Florida Stormwater Association, Inc., and Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., are organizations with a substantial number of members who are subject to the challenged rules. Intervenors, Clay County Utility Authority, Destin Water Users, Inc., South Walton County Utility Co., and Emerald Coast Utilities serve water and/or wastewater customers. They operate wastewater treatment plants that are subject to the challenged rules. Intervenor, James Sartori, is a farmer whose operations in Brevard and Highlands Counties are subject to the challenged rules. Intervenor, SFWMD, is a regional governmental agency that oversees water resources, including water quality regulation, in the southern half of the state. The existing nutrient rule is incorporated by reference into the District’s Environmental Resource Permitting Program and the proposed rules would be incorporated by reference as well. The parties stipulated in their prehearing stipulation to additional facts regarding each party's substantial interests in the challenged rules. Background Florida’s surface water quality standards have four components: designated uses; water quality criteria; an antidegradation policy; and moderating provisions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.200(31). Surface waters are assigned one of six designated use classifications: Class I: potable water supplies Class II: shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: fish consumption, recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class III-Limited: fish consumption, recreation or limited recreation, and/or propagation and maintenance of a limited population of fish and wildlife Class IV: agricultural water supplies Class V: navigation, utility and industrial use The "default" designation for surface waters is Class III. Unless otherwise specified by rule, all waterbodies are Class III waters. The existing and proposed nutrient criteria apply to Class I, II, and III surface waters. A definition for "nutrient" is included in proposed rule 62-302.200(22) and is not challenged by Petitioners: "Nutrient" shall mean total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), or their organic or inorganic forms. Phosphorus and nitrogen are among the most common elements in the natural environment. All forms of life must use nitrogen and phosphorus to build their cells and to carry out basic metabolic processes. Florida's natural features, including flat topography, wetlands, warm and humid climate, nutrient-rich soils, and tropical storms and hurricanes are conducive to nutrient over- enrichment. Under natural conditions, episodic nutrient loading is not a problem. Short-term excesses are usually assimilated in the ecosystem by aquatic food webs without causing an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Human-influenced (anthropogenic) nutrient loading is the cause of long-term imbalances in aquatic flora and fauna. The principal anthropogenic sources of nutrients are fertilizers, domestic wastewater, and livestock waste. The contribution of nutrients to Florida's surface waters from anthropogenic sources has been increasing. Excess nutrient loading over long periods of time usually increases the number of macrophytes, macroalgae, and phytoplankton. Their excess growth can reduce light penetration and the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water column, which are fundamental to the health of other aquatic flora and fauna. A substantial increase in these organisms can lead to a decrease or loss of other species. Nutrient-sensitive species are reduced or eliminated. Nutrient-tolerant species dominate. These conditions represent the imbalance that is referred to throughout this Final Order. Once an imbalance occurs, it is difficult to restore the balance. In 1979, the Department described nutrient pollution as "one of the most severe water quality problems facing the State." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(13). In the same year, the "narrative nutrient criterion" was adopted. It has not changed since 1979. It is now codified as rule 62- 302.530(47)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Similar narrative nutrient criteria have been adopted in other states. However, nutrient pollution in Florida and nationwide has worsened due primarily to steady increases in human population and development. In 1998, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") expressed its expectation that all states would adopt numeric nutrient criteria by December 31, 2003. Although the Department spent millions of dollars studying the problem in Florida and trying to devise numeric criteria, another decade passed without the adoption of numeric criteria. In 2008, the Department reported to the EPA that 1,049 miles of streams, 349,248 acres of lakes, and 902 square miles of estuaries were impaired as a result of excess nutrients. Florida's springs were also showing increased nutrients. The Department reported a new concern regarding harmful algal blooms, which are blooms of such high concentration and/or areal extent that they adversely affect other aquatic flora and fauna. Toxic algae can be injurious to human health. Cyanobacteria can produce various kinds of toxins including hepatotoxins that affect the liver and can cause liver hemorrhaging, disease and death in wildlife and humans, renal toxins that affect the kidneys, dermatotoxins that cause skin problems such as lesions or blistering, and neurotoxins that interfere with nerve-impulse transmission causing spasms, convulsions, paralysis, and death. Together, these algal toxins are known as “cyanotoxins.” Red tide, a kind of dinoflagellate, can produce brevotoxins, which can cause respiratory distress when aerolized by wind and wave action. The Florida Department of Health and its associated County Health Departments periodically issue health alert warnings about toxic algal blooms. In January 2009, the EPA determined that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA determined that "Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone is not sufficient to protect applicable designated uses, and that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary." On December 6, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. EPA's 2009 determination that numeric criteria are necessary for Florida and its 2010 proposed numeric criteria were challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and consolidated in Fla. Wildlife Fed., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, WL 537529, *35 (N.D. Fla. 2012). On February 18, 2012, Judge Hinkle issued his decision upholding the EPA determination and EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and springs. EPA's stream criteria and downstream protection values for unimpaired lakes were overturned. Id. The Narrative Nutrient Criterion The narrative criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b) is not being replaced by the proposed rules. It will remain in effect because the proposed rules are intended by the Department to be "numeric interpretations" of the narrative criterion. The narrative criterion is not in the usual form for Florida's water quality criteria. The vast majority of water quality criteria are stated as specific concentrations of chemical constituents that represent a good condition for the waterbody. If these concentrations are not exceeded, the waterbody is not polluted and its designated uses are protected. The narrative nutrient criterion, on the other hand, describes a bad condition that is prohibited. However, the narrative nutrient criterion is not the only narrative water quality criterion or the only criterion that describes a bad condition that is prohibited. For example, the so-called "free-from rule," rule 62-302.500, states that all surface waters shall be free from discharges of substances that create a nuisance or that are present in concentrations that are acutely toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant wildlife. Petitioners contend that the narrative nutrient criterion is arbitrary and capricious because it "illogically and irrationally attempts to protect . . . waters from adverse impacts of nutrient pollution with a criterion that is reactive rather [than] preventative." By "reactive" Petitioners mean that an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna must occur before the criterion is violated and the Department can or will react to do something about the violation, which Petitioners say is too late. On its face, there is nothing illogical or irrational about the narrative criterion. There is nothing about the plain and ordinary meanings of the words used in the rule that make the rule illogical or irrational. The narrative criterion expressly prohibits nutrient pollution, a prohibition which the Petitioners are all for. At its core, Petitioners' argument is that the narrative criterion does not work. Petitioners' argument seems to draw on common sense; if there has been widespread nutrient pollution in Florida waters, then the Department's water quality criterion for nutrients is not preventing pollution. However, proving that nutrient pollution has not been prevented is not the same thing as proving that the narrative criterion is the cause. Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate, for example, that in the absence of the narrative criterion, there would have been less nutrient pollution in Florida. The more persuasive evidence is that the narrative criterion has some beneficial effect in controlling nutrient pollution. The narrative criterion has been used, for example, to limit nutrient discharges in permits issued by the Department. Two important factors must be accounted for when considering the nutrient pollution problems in Florida. First, much of the human-induced nutrient loading into surface waters is not regulated by the Department. Nutrient contributions from most agricultural operations and from septic tanks, for example, are not regulated by the Department, but by other governmental entities. These and other human activities that contribute nutrients to surface waters do not involve any required analysis of how the nutrient loading may affect the balance of natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna in the receiving waters. They do not even involve notice to the Department. There is more support in the record for the proposition that nutrient pollution in Florida is caused by a fragmented and uncoordinated regulatory system than for Petitioners' proposition that nutrient pollution is due to the Department's narrative criterion. Petitioners did not show that numeric criteria, alone, can prevent nutrient pollution in Florida. Second, the effect of nutrients on aquatic flora and fauna is an extremely complicated subject. Nutrients occur naturally in surface waters and their concentrations vary naturally. The effects of nutrients on flora and fauna are dependent on many physical, chemical, and biological variables and these effects differ greatly between types of waterbodies (for example, streams and lakes or fresh and marine waters) as well as geographically. Algal blooms can occur naturally, independent of any anthropogenic influence. Sporadic algal blooms are part of the natural flora of an aquatic ecosystem. Algal bloom dynamics are complex and are not completely understood. Whether a bloom will produce cyanotoxins in concentrations that could be harmful to public health cannot be predicted. Most water quality criteria are based on toxicity, which can be identified by a dose-response test. Most criteria are set at concentrations below the levels at which adverse effects are observed in test organisms. That approach cannot be used for nutrients because TN and TP can cause an imbalance in aquatic ecosystems at concentrations well below their toxic levels. Although many general concepts associated with the effects of nutrients in surface waters are understood in the scientific community, there are important aspects that are still a matter of conjecture and debate. Pristine or severely degraded conditions in a particular waterbody associated with nutrient concentrations can be identified and described with relative ease. However, the current science does not provide a widely-applicable tipping point beyond which the natural balance of flora and fauna is upset or jeopardized. Over the last several years, considerable scientific research, analysis, and debate have been dedicated to the purpose of designing nutrient criteria to better protect designated uses. However, the overarching goal of preventing an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna has not been abandoned. Petitioners' witnesses said nothing to suggest that it is the wrong goal. The narrative criterion expresses this universally accepted goal. Petitioners failed to prove that the narrative nutrient criterion is not designed to control and prohibit nutrient pollution. The record shows that there are more effective criteria that the Department can use to assess nutrient impacts and protect designated uses, such as those criteria in the proposed rules that are also challenged by Petitioners. Because the narrative criterion will be "interpreted" with numeric criteria for many waterbodies, Petitioners' challenge is more precisely a question of whether the narrative nutrient criterion is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in the context of its application to intermittent streams, wetlands, and other surface waters for which only the narrative criterion will be applicable. Due to insufficient data and scientific knowledge, the Department is not yet able to adopt numeric criteria for intermittent streams, wetlands, and the other surface waters to which only the narrative criterion will apply. Petitioners did not prove that any of the surface waters excluded from the proposed numeric criteria are sources of drinking water or that there are human health hazards associated with toxic algae in these surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the narrative criterion contravenes the law implemented or is arbitrary or capricious. Chapter 62-302, "Surface Water Quality Standards" General The proposed rules are lengthy and need not be reproduced in this Final Order. They are contained in Petitioners' Exhibit 712.1/ The proposed numeric criteria were developed in a deliberative process which involved considerable study over many years and input from numerous scientists. The record details these efforts, but it was not a matter of dispute, so it is not detailed here. It suffices to say that the Department's rulemaking effort was unusual in terms of time, cost, numbers of scientists involved, and the comprehensiveness of the investigations that were undertaken and the data that were reviewed. The Department's position on disputed factual issues was supported by expert testimony, reports, graphs, and data summaries generated by investigations that involved many scientists focused on the specific objective of developing nutrient criteria. In contrast, Petitioners' position was usually supported only by expert opinions that were based on data collected for different purposes and not presented or made a part of the record. 2. Rule 62-300.200, "Definitions" Petitioners object to the proposed definition of "stream" in rule 62-300.200(36) because it excludes "non- perennial water segments." Petitioners referred to these waters as "intermittent streams." Petitioners contend that the exclusion of intermittent streams contravenes section 403.061(11), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to establish water quality standards for all waters. Section 403.061(11) authorizes the Department to establish water quality standards "for the state as a whole or for any part of the state," but Petitioners argue that this language does not allow the Department to exclude from protection certain "types" of waters, such as intermittent streams. The proposed definition of stream is "for purposes of interpreting the narrative nutrient criterion" through use of the numeric criteria in rule 62-302.531(2)(c). The exclusion of intermittent streams from the definition of "stream" means that the numeric criteria will not apply to intermittent streams, but the narrative nutrient criterion remains applicable to them. The authority to establish water quality standards for "any part of" the state is reasonably interpreted by the Department to allow it to establish water quality standards for specific waterbodies because each waterbody is located in a different part of the state. It is also reasonable for the Department to establish different water quality criteria for waterbodies that have different characteristics. Although Petitioners emphasize what is similar about perennial and non- perennial streams, there are also differences between them related to nutrient levels and biological responses. It is not irrational for the Department to apply its new numeric criteria only to those streams for which it has sufficient data and understanding with respect to the response of flora and fauna to nutrients. Petitioners did not show that there are numeric nutrient criteria that would work well for all intermittent streams. Petitioners object to parts of the definitions for "Lake Vegetation Index," "Nutrient Threshold," and "Stream Condition Index," but these objections were not raised in their petitions. Petitioners did not show how these definitions somehow fail to accurately describe the terms. 3. Rule 62-302.531, "Numeric Interpretations of Narrative Nutrient Criteria" The numeric criteria form what the Department calls a hierarchy of interpretations of the narrative criterion. Hierarchy 1 interpretations are the Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), site-specific alternative criteria (“SSAC”), water quality-based effluent limits (“WQBEL”), and other numeric water quality criteria for nutrients that the Department has already established for specific waterbodies. See (proposed) Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.531(2)(a). The Department is proposing new Hierarchy 1 interpretations for six Florida estuaries in proposed rule 62-302.532. Each estuary would have its own nutrient criteria. Hierarchy 2 interpretations are numeric criteria that are proposed for a category of waters based on the Department's determination that a quantifiable cause and effect relationship exists between nutrient levels and biological responses in such waters. Hierarchy 2 criteria are proposed in rule 62-302.531(2)(b)1. and 2. for lakes and springs. Hierarchy 3 interpretations are proposed for streams because the Department was unable to find statistically significant cause-and-effect relationships that can be applied generally to streams. The criteria in proposed rule 62-302.531(2)(c) establish a process for evaluating individual streams on a case-by-case basis, using numeric thresholds and biological data to determine whether they are meeting the narrative nutrient criterion. For categories of waters that the Department has not yet been able to devise a reliable numeric criterion or system of evaluation, no new criteria are being proposed. The narrative nutrient criterion will continue to apply to these categories, which include wetlands, certain estuaries, intermittent streams, and streams within the South Florida Watershed Region. Lakes The Department’s numeric nutrient criteria for lakes are based on chlorophyll a levels. Chlorophyll a is an indicator of algal biomass and is correlated with nutrient concentrations. The proposed criteria differentiate clear lakes, colored lakes with low alkalinity, and colored lakes with high alkalinity. The Department proposes a standard of 20 micrograms per liter (µg/L) of chlorophyll a in colored lakes and in clear lakes with high alkalinity. For clear lakes with low alkalinity, the numeric criterion is 6 µg/L chlorophyll a. See (proposed) Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(2)(b)1. The Department established a range of TN and TP concentrations that corresponded to the chlorophyll a levels. For example, 20 µg/L chlorophyll a for colored lakes corresponds to a TN range of 1.27 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 2.23 mg/L. Id. If the chlorophyll a concentration in a lake does not exceed the chlorophyll a value in the rule, and the TN and TP concentrations in the lake do not exceed the maximum TN and TP values in the rule, the lake is deemed be achieving a balance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. If the chlorophyll a concentration in a lake exceeds the value in the rule, but the TN and TP concentrations in the lake do not exceed the minimum TN and TP values in the rule, the lake is still deemed to be healthy. If the chlorophyll a concentration in a lake exceeds the value in the rule and the TN or TP concentrations in the lake also exceed the minimum TN or TP values in the rule, then the lake nutrient criteria (and the narrative nutrient criterion) are not achieved. These values in the rule for chlorophyll a, TN, and TP refer to the annual geometric mean of concentrations from at least four water samples. Compliance with the criteria is achieved by having no more than one exceedance in a three-year period. These same sampling and compliance requirements appear in other parts of the proposed rules and Petitioners' objections to these requirements are addressed later under a separate heading. Springs As with lakes, the Department found a strong correlation between nutrient levels and algal growth in springs. Proposed rule 62-302.531(2)(b)2. establishes the numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient criteria for Florida springs as 0.35 mg/L of nitrate-nitrite (annual geometric mean). Streams Because no consistent cause and effect relationship was found between nutrients and biological responses in streams, the Department developed "threshold values" for TN and TP. These values are used in the evaluation of a stream. They are not used as values that cannot be exceeded. The threshold nutrient values are derived from data for “benchmark" streams that are minimally disturbed. The benchmark streams were grouped according to geographic regions because streams differ from region to region. For each region, threshold TP and TN values were derived. However, for streams in the South Florida Watershed Region, the data were inadequate to develop threshold nutrient values. The narrative criterion, alone, will apply to those streams. The nutrient criteria for streams are achieved if chlorophyll a levels, algal mats or blooms, nuisance macrophyte growth, and changes in algal species composition indicates no imbalances in flora and fauna, and either the stream has a high Stream Condition Index (SCI) score, which is a measure of biological health based on benthic macroinvertebrates, or the nutrient thresholds in the rule are achieved. See (proposed) Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.531(2)(c). A stream with imbalanced flora and fauna would fail to achieve the streams nutrient criteria even if TN and TP concentrations are below the TN and TP benchmark thresholds. On the other hand, if nutrient concentrations exceed the TN and TP thresholds, a stream could still achieve the streams criteria if natural populations of flora and fauna are well-balanced, as shown by the floral evaluation and SCI score. These rule outcomes reflect the Department's determination that nutrient levels in streams, will not always correspond to floral and faunal health. Petitioners object to the use of the SCI because they say it is primarily a measure of biological responses to human disturbance and not specifically to nutrient pollution. However, the SCI provides information about faunal health and, therefore, has a direct bearing on whether there is an imbalance of natural populations of aquatic fauna. Petitioners object to the proposed use of the SCI because they say it is not a good test for the presence of algal toxins because not all macroinvertebrates are sensitive to algal toxins. However, the SCI is only one part of the streams criteria. The evidence shows that the streams criteria, taken as a whole, are reasonably designed to evaluate the presence and significance of algae. Petitioners also object to the streams criteria because the floral component of the criteria requires an imbalance before the stream will be deemed to not achieve the criteria, which Petitioners contend is not protective. The argument presumes that there exists a numeric criterion that, if achieved, would always indicate a healthy ecosystem, and if exceeded, would always indicate an unhealthy ecosystem. Petitioners failed to prove the existence of such a criterion. In determining the validity of EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for Florida's streams, Judge Hinkle stated that the "right target" for the numeric criteria was a value that would create an imbalance in flora or fauna. Summary The Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed numeric criteria for lakes, springs, and streams are reasonably designed to prevent pollution and protect their designated uses. Sample Size and Exceedance Frequency The Department established minimum data requirements in the proposed rules for the calculation of annual geometric mean values for TP, TN, and chlorophyll a. The proposed rules require that the geometric mean be calculated from at least four water samples in a calendar year, with at least one sample collected between May 1 and September 30 and at least one sample taken during the other months of the calendar year. The criteria are achieved if there is no more than one exceedance of the geometric mean in a three-year period. Petitioners contend that these proposed sampling and compliance criteria are arbitrary and capricious and contravene law because more samples are needed to generate a reliable geometric mean and more samples should be required during the period May through September because that is when algal blooms occur most frequently. Petitioners believe that prevention of algal blooms should be the primary objective of the numeric criteria. Petitioners' objections reflect a misunderstanding about the source of the data. For example, Petitioners contend in their proposed final order that "[a] rule which requires that only one chlorophyll a sample be collected during the algae season is scientifically irrational," but there is no such requirement in the proposed rules. Petitioners object to the "required sampling regime," but there is no required sampling regime. The proposed rules do not deal with sample collection. Sampling requirements are normally associated with permits and the proposed rules do not address permits or permit requirements for nutrient discharges. The proposed rules do not limit the Department's authority to require permittees who have nutrient discharges to collect more than four samples annually and more than one sample during the period May through September. Nor do the proposed rules limit the number of water samples above four that may be used to calculate the annual geometric mean. If more than four data points exist, then more than four data points will be used to calculate the geometric mean. If more than one sample is available from the period May through September, then more than one sample from this period will be used in the calculation of the geometric mean (as long as there are at least three samples available from other months). The proposed rules do not tell anyone to collect fewer samples than are being collected currently. The proposed rules reflect the fundamental fact that data are limited. The majority of water quality sampling is performed voluntarily by entities other than the Department, primarily by local and regional governments. Most waterbodies are not sampled on a monthly basis. There are limited data available to determine achievement of any nutrient criterion. The proposed rules simply specify that at least four water samples must be used for this purpose, one of which must have been taken in the period May through September. Petitioners' expert witness, Dr. Burkholder, offered a hypothetical example of a lake with four chlorophyll a samples that would generate a geometric mean indicating that the lake is balanced even though one of the values is high enough to indicate the presence of an algal bloom and a potential imbalance in aquatic flora or fauna. If the proposed rules required the geometric mean to be calculated with at least 5 nutrient samples, then this hypothetical lake would have no geometric mean to calculate or consider. If the proposed rules required 10 or 12 data points to calculate the geometric mean and three or four samples from the period May through September, as recommended by Dr. Burkholder, many waterbodies could not be assessed. Dr. Burkholder suggested that it is better to have no information for a waterbody than to have limited information that may erroneously indicate a waterbody is healthy when it is actually unhealthy. Dr. Burkholder did not quantify the probability of this "false negative." The Department's statistical analysis showed that it is insignificant. The Department chose the minimum sample size that its statistical analysis showed would be reasonable for the intended purpose so that it could assess more waterbodies. That choice is as much a matter of policy as of science. Algal blooms, even toxic algal blooms, occur naturally in the absence of human influence. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Department to avoid equating an algal bloom to an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. The allowance for one exceedance in a three-year period accounts for natural fluctuations in nutrient levels. The Department's statistical analysis showed that, in order to meet the 1-in-3-year exceedance criterion, long-term average concentrations of nutrients must be well below the numeric limits and thresholds. If the proposed criteria are being attained, the likelihood of a non-natural algal bloom should be small. The Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the sample size and compliance criteria used in the proposed rules are reasonably designed to prevent pollution and protect designated uses. 62-302.532, "Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criteria" Due to the wide variation in Florida's estuaries, the Department developed estuary-specific numeric criteria for them. The estuaries are further divided into sub-basins. Petitioners challenge the criteria developed for four of the estuaries: Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and Tidal Cocohatchee River/Ten Thousand Islands. The Department worked with the National Estuary Programs, the Marine Technical Advisory Committee, the EPA Science Advisory Board, and local scientists using a "weight-of- evidence" approach to assess the biological health of the four estuaries and develop numeric criteria. Special consideration was given to whether human-induced nutrient loading was the cause of any adverse condition or loss of ecosystem function. The health of seagrasses in the estuaries was important in the assessment of nutrient conditions because excess nutrients cause high chlorophyll a concentrations, which reduce the sunlight seagrass needs to survive and thrive. Seagrasses provide critical habitat for a diverse community of flora and fauna. The Department determined that the four estuaries were either biologically healthy or that any biological problems were caused by factors other than excess nutrients. Therefore, the Department's approach was to establish nutrient criteria for TN, TP, and chlorophyll a for each estuary that would maintain existing healthy conditions. The Department used data collected from a monitoring network established by Florida International University. Dr. Lapointe objected to the Department's approach because red tide blooms have occurred in Florida estuaries, which he believes is an indication that existing conditions include excess nutrients. However, the more persuasive evidence is that red tide blooms are not a reliable indicator of human- caused, excess nutrient loading and may indicate only a temporary imbalance in aquatic flora and fauna. The estuary criteria are based on geometric means calculated from at least four samples and compliance is achieved if there is no more than one exceedance in a three-year period. Petitioners' objections to the sample size and exceedance frequency have already been discussed. Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay was determined to have a healthy ecosystem. It has the third largest coral reef in the world. The seagrass communities are healthy and are expanding. Nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations are low. There have been no toxic algal blooms or red tide events. There are a number of conditions of concern in Biscayne Bay, but Department's analysis showed that the impairments are not caused by human-influenced nutrient enrichment. The decline in coral coverage, for example, is due primarily to high water temperature. Petitioners' experts do not agree that Biscayne Bay is healthy, but their opinions were given less weight than the opinions of Dr. Madden, a SWFMD biologist, who is more familiar with current conditions in the Bay. Florida Bay The Department determined Florida Bay has well- balanced and diverse populations of flora and fauna. Existing biological problems are not caused by excess nutrients. There have been no toxic blooms in Florida Bay, or red tide events. Seagrass communities in Florida Bay are healthy. Dr. Lapointe said there had been a substantial loss of seagrasses, but the loss occurred in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Seagrass coverage has been steadily increasing to the present. There has been some of loss of corals in Florida Bay. The Department attributes the loss to reduced salinity. Dr. Lapointe believes that the loss was caused by excess nutrients, but his evidence was not persuasive. Tidal Cocohatchee River/Ten Thousand Islands The Department determined that the Tidal Cocohatchee River/Ten Thousand Islands estuaries had healthy, well-balanced populations of flora and fauna during the baseline period. Nutrient and chlorophyll a levels are low. Dr. Lapointe testified that red drift algae blooms have occurred, which he attributes to excess nutrients, but he did not show how natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna were affected. Florida Keys The Department determined that the Florida Keys had a healthy, well-balanced population of flora and fauna during the baseline period. Nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations are low. The seagrass beds are healthy and extensive. The decline in coral coverage in the Florida Keys is not caused by excess nutrients, but is due to other factors such as coral diseases and temperature. Coral coverage has been stable since 2009. There was considerable dispute about the levels of nutrients in the Keys and whether their sources are anthropogenic. Petitioners did not present the data to support the opinions expressed by their expert. Summary These four estuaries are extremely valuable resources that deserve special care to prevent them from being lost to pollution. It was unfortunate that the expert witnesses were so far apart in their characterization of the health of the estuaries and their opinions about whether they are adversely affected currently by excess nutrients. However, the Department's extensive investigations and proceedings to evaluate the condition of the estuaries and to develop numeric criteria for them took into account the point of view of some participants that the estuaries are suffering from excess nutrients. The Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the numeric criteria for these four estuaries are reasonably designed to prevent pollution and protect their designated uses. 6. Rule 62-302.800(3), Type III SSAC Site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) are criteria that are demonstrated to be more appropriate for a waterbody than the state-wide water quality criteria. They are adopted by rule on a case-by-case basis. The existing rule provides for Type I and Type II SSAC. A Type I SSAC is adopted for a waterbody that does not meet a water quality criterion due to natural background conditions or man-induced conditions which cannot be controlled or abated. A Type II SSAC is one adopted when a waterbody does not meet a water quality criterion for other reasons. The proposed rules would establish a new Type III SSAC specifically for nutrients. In their petition, Petitioners object to the Type III SSAC for reasons that have already been discussed in the context of rule 62-302.351. The evidence presented by Petitioners was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Type III SSAC provisions contravene law implemented or are arbitrary or capricious. Chapter 62-303, "Identification of Impaired Surface Waters" The impaired waters rule was first promulgated by the Department in 2002 in response to requirements of section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. See § 403.067, Fla. Stat. Section 403.067(3)(b) required the Department to adopt by rule a methodology for determining the waters that are impaired. Impaired waters are waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due in whole or in part to point and non-point discharges of pollutants. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62.303.200(7). The existing rule contains a "planning list" of surface waters that are suspected of being impaired and a "verified list" of waters that have been confirmed as impaired. A waterbody can be placed on the verified list without first going on the planning list if the data are sufficient to confirm its impairment. For waterbodies on the verified list, the Department develops TMDLs based on a priority ranking system. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-303.500. A TMDL is defined in rule 62-303.200(24): "Total maximum daily load" (TMDL) for an impaired water body or water body segment shall mean the sum of individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual waste load allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water body segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. A TMDL shall include either an implicit or explicit margin of safety and a consideration of seasonal variations. The proposed rules would add a “study list” for waterbodies known to be impaired, but the cause of the impairment has not been determined. If the impairment is determined to be caused by a particular pollutant, then the waterbody is placed on the verified list and a TMDL would be developed. If the impairment is caused by something other than a pollutant, such as a physical or hydrologic alteration to the waterbody, then a TMDL would not be developed. See (proposed) Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-303.150. Waters on the planning list and study list are slated for additional investigation. The proposed rules would add a test for adverse trends. A stream, lake, or estuary would be placed on the planning list if there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the annual geometric means for TN, TP, or chlorophyll a. See (proposed) Fla. Admin Code R. 62-303.351(5), 62-303.352(3), 62-303.353(4). For springs, the trend test looks for increases in concentrations of nitrate-nitrite. See (proposed) Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-303.354(3). A more robust trend test analysis is required to place a waterbody on the study list. The purpose of the trend analyses is to attempt to prevent an imbalance in flora and fauna from occurring in the future. Petitioners object to the proposed changes to rule chapter 62-303 because it relies on the use of four water samples to calculate a geometric mean and the allowance for a 1- in-3-year exceedance of the various nutrient criteria. Those objections have already been discussed and are not repeated here. Petitioners claim that the proposed rules use "an arbitrary and capricious sequence of biological assessments which require irrationally stringent proof of impairment and nutrient pollution causation." Petitioners did not prove this claim. The biological assessments are reasonably designed to determine whether an imbalance exists. Proof of impairment by human-caused nutrient loading is necessary and the level of proof required to determine the cause of the pollution is reasonable. Petitioners assert that a waterbody will not make it to the verified list unless it exhibits an imbalance in flora or fauna, but that is consistent with the Clean Water Act and section 403.067. The failure to meet water quality standards is the basis for placement on the verified list and development of a TMDL. The Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rules amending rule chapter 62-303 are reasonably designed to identify, manage, and restore impaired waters. Summary The Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged rules do not contravene the law implemented and are not arbitrary or capricious.
The Issue Whether the activities conducted on respondent's property required a dredge/fill permit and whether respondent violated the conditions of the permit issued on February 15, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the record holder of a parcel of land located within Section 35, Township 45, South, Range 21 East, in Lee County, Florida. Respondent's property is contiguous to Pine Island Sound, a Class II, Outstanding Florida Water. Maureen Powers, an Environmental Specialist with the Department initially inspected respondent's property on May 23, 1984, after the Department received an anonymous complaint that someone was clearing away mangroves on the property. Ms. Powers-discovered that an earthen-fill road had been constructed on the property, and a portion of the road, 24' x 43'; was located within the landward extent of the state's waters. The determination that the portion of the road was within the Department's jurisdiction was based on the dominance of black and white mangroves. There had been recent mangrove cutting in the area, and a pile of vegetative debris, the result of the cutting, had been placed in the jurisdictional wetlands contiguous to Pine Island Sound. On June 1, 1984, Ms. Powers met with respondent in Langley Adair's office to discuss the violations observed on May 23, 1984, and to discuss the resolution of these violations. Respondent agreed to remove all of the earthen fill and vegetative debris that he had deposited within the jurisdictional wetlands. He agreed to refrain from any further work within the jurisdictional area prior to receiving a permit from the department. He also agreed to open up a flow channel in the berm along Pine Island Sound to restore circulation to the area. On July 11, 1984, Ms. Powers conducted an on-site inspection and discovered that the vegetative debris and the fill material had not been removed. Further, it was apparent that respondent's proposed home site, outlined by string and stakes, was submerged and directly connected by water to Pine Island Sound. The water standing on the property covered a portion of the fill area. On August 8, 1984, another inspection was performed, and it was discovered that respondent still had not removed the fill materials. The condition of the property was essentially the same as it had been on July 11, 1984. By letter dated August 20, 1984, respondent was again notified of the violations and reminded that he had agreed on June 1, 1984, to remove the vegetative and earthen fill. Respondent was informed that he needed to remove the fill materials within 30 days of receipt of the letter in order to avoid further enforcement action. On September 5, 1984, Ms. Powers again inspected the property and found that the proposed homesite and a portion of the fill were still submerged, that the water connected directly with Pine Island Sound and the fill materials had not been removed. Also apparent was a flume of milky white water which originated at the toe of the fill and continued into Pine Island Sound. Water samples were taken which revealed that the erosion of the unauthorized fill was resulting in a violation of state surface water quality criteria, specifically, turbidity1 greater than 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units above natural background. The background sample, taken upstream from the site of the discharge, had a value of 5.2 turbidity units. The water sample taken two feet from the toe of the fill had a value of 69 turbidity units, and the sample from Pine Island Sound waterward of the mangrove fringe had a value of 46 turbidity units. On October 9, 1984, a letter was sent to respondent which pointed out that the earthen and vegetative fill had not been removed and notifying respondent that erosion of the earthen fill into the waters of Pine Island Sound had resulted in violation of surface water quality criteria. Respondent was requested to immediately cease and desist from all unauthorized. activity under the Department's jurisdiction. To clarify the situation, original photos of the site were sent with the letter which showed the earthen fill, the vegetative debris, and the turbid water leaving the site. A diagram of the site was also included to show the location fill materials that were to have been removed. On October 25, 1984, Ms. Powers met with Mr. Decker at the site. Ms. Powers showed respondent the earthen fill and vegetative debris that should have been removed. Ms. Powers noted that the waterward 23' x 24' section of the earthen fill had become heavily colonized by black mangrove seedings and, therefore, excepted that portion of the fill from the removal requirement so that the seedlings would not be disturbed. Mr. Decker stated that he would remove the unauthorized fill within two weeks. Meanwhile, apparently in September, respondent had submitted a permit application. Mr. Beaver was the field inspector assigned by DER to evaluate the application and make a recommendation on the feasibility of the project to the dredge and fill supervisor. On October 8, 1984, Mr. Beaver performed the field inspection at the site, and on October 23, 1984, issued his permit application appraisal recommending that the application be denied. Mr. Beaver recommended that the project be reconsidered for a permit if, among other things, the house site were removed from the landward extent of the state waters and located in the uplands, the septic tank were removed from the low lying portions of the site, and previously cut areas were allowed to regrow in native vegetation. On November 15, 1984, Mr. Beaver met with Mr. Decker and Mr. Cantrell, the district supervisor of dredge and fill, to discuss the project. Mr. Cantrell asked how the project could be modified so that Mr. Decker could have his house in the location where he wanted it. Mr. Beaver suggested a stilt, elevated house with a small fill pad that would allow access to the entrance of the house. The house would have to be elevated -enough so that revegetation of wetland plants could occur underneath the house structure and water flow could be maintained. On November 19, 1984, Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver met Mr. Decker at the property. Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver staked the DER jurisdiction line and marked the proposed location of Mr. Decker's boardwalk. Mr. Decker asked about placing wood chip mulch on the wetlands on his property in order to beautify the area. Mr. Decker was informed that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and would require modification of his permit application. Subsequent to the meeting of November 15 and the on- site inspection of November 19, Mr. Decker modified his project. However, wood chip mulch was not mentioned. On December 7, 1984, Mr. Beaver recommended that the application be approved subject to specified conditions, which were ultimately incorporated into the permit. On December 11, 1984, Ms. Powers inspected the site and discovered that a large pile of wood chips had been placed on the northeast end of the fill road waterward of the jurisdiction line. The vegetative debris and earthen fill that had previously been on the project had not been removed. Respondent was notified of the violations by a Cease and Desist letter dated January 4, 1985. The letter pointed out that respondent had been told specifically that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and that dredge/fill permit would be required prior to the placement of any fill material. On February 5, 1984, respondent met with DER, officials to discuss the violations. Mr. Decker stated that the fill had been removed as requested. The Department informed Mr. Decker that an inspection would be performed and, if the fill had not been removed, the Department would pursue formal enforcement action. On February 7, 1985, the site was inspected none of the fill material had been removed. A subsequent inspection on February 20, 1985, revealed that the wood chips had been spread throughout the jurisdictional wetlands. On February 15, 1985, respondent received a permit to fill and to construct a dock and boardwalk. The specific conditions of the permit include the following: 2. A 20' x 16' - 4" fill pad shall be the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line. This fill pad will be composed of clean sand and have the banks stabilized by a riprap revetment with a slope not greater than 2H:1V. * * * The house and all associated structures shall be built upon stilts with concrete footings and/or wooden pilings. On-site turbidity control devices shall be installed and properly maintained to localize turbidity impacts to the construction area. * * * All vegetative debris, trash and spoil material resulting from concrete footing placement shall be removed from the landward extent of State Waters as defined by the jurisdiction line staked by the DER. Upon completion of construction, non- filled areas beneath the stilt house and associated structures shall be returned to original grade if they were altered by construction. Wetland vegetation shall be planted in the previously cleared area and mangroves removed by construction activities shall be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis with 80% survival over a three year period. * * * 11. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.111 - Criteria - Class II Waters Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting, Surface Waters General Conditions 2 and 5 of the permit provide: 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operation applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for 81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. 19. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 2\', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the revocation and enforcement action by the department. 5. This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property and penalties therefor caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, unless specifically authorized by an order from the department. On March 19, 1985, an inspection of the property revealed that Mr. Decker had totally ignored the conditions of his permit. Rather than a fill pad of 20' x 16', respondent had filled an area approximately 78' x 81'.2 The fill was unstabilized, and no turbidity control devices were in place. Fill material had been used to construct a earthen berm across a natural flow channel, blocking the flow of water onto the property. Further, the vegetative debris resulting from the construction of the boardwalk had been deposited in the mangrove wetlands. On March 22, 1985, a Notice of Violation and. Orders for Corrective Action was sent to the respondent. Respondent received the notice on or about March 26, 1985. The landward extent of the state waters on respondent's property, the area in which a DER permit is required for dredging and filing, was determined by the presence of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and saltwort (Basis maritime) as the dominant species. The jurisdiction line was originally staked on November 19, 1984, and was reestablished on April 23, 1985, from remaining landmarks, due to the original markers being removed. The 78' x81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 21/2', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the jurisdictional wetlands, but respondent placed a septic tank and drainfield in that area.3 By filling an area several times the size of the area authorized, respondent has seriously violated the conditions of the permit. A fill area of the size that now exists eliminates the habitat and water quality functions that the area historically performed. Respondent has violated Specific Condition #4, which required that the house and associated structures be built on stilts. The purpose of such a requirement is to preserve undisturbed the existing substrate, which constitutes the base of the food chain, and to allow for a free flow of water across the site, which is essential to the health of the mangrove system. Respondent not only filled an area larger than his proposed house, he poured a solid, continuous, concrete foundation on top of the fill, which would prevent the flow of water should the water rise high enough to come onto the filled area.4 By filling the area, destroying the substrate, and preventing the flow of water into the area, respondent has violated Specific Condition #4 of the permit. Respondent violated Specific Condition #5 of his permit in that respondent failed to install any turbidity control devices. Turbidity control devices of some sort are necessary in a fill area such as the one in this case. Turbidity screens or staked hay bales could have been used. Respondent also violated Specific Condition #8. Construction debris and vegetative debris were located throughout the area. Although respondent technically has not violated Specific Condition #9, in that it requires acts to be performed "upon completion of construction", respondent has made compliance with that provision an impossibility because he has filled the "non- filled areas beneath the stilt house" and therefore there are no "non-filled areas" to return to original grade. Respondent has never requested that his permit conditions and requirements be modified. By his actions, respondent has repeatedly shown a complete disregard for the requirements of the law, and he has totally ignored the conditions set forth in the permit. Mr. Decker was not qualified as an expert and I did not find him to be a credible witness. The reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Department in relation to the enforcement aspects of this action are $866.17. These costs and expenses were incurred by the Department in its effort to control and abate pollutants and to restore the waters and property of the state to their former condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the respondent's permit, number 360902245, be revoked that the respondent be ordered to make payment to the Department in the amount of $866.17 for costs and expenses incurred by the state and that the following corrective action be ordered: Respondent shall within thirty (30) days, remove all unauthorized fill material placed within the area of Department jurisdiction. Prior to initiating the fill removal respondent shall arrange for Department personnel to stake the area to be restored. All areas shall be restored to the elevation and soil conditions which existed prior to the placement of fill material. Respondent shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated during the restoration work. Respondent shall not disturb adjacent areas within the jurisdiction of the Department unless approved by the Department in writing. DONE and ENTERED this a 24th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 24th day of January, 1986.
The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for a variance, after the fact, from Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In early 1981, petitioner White began putting in pilings on Lot 3, Block 6 of Chippewa Subdivision on the north shore of Choctawhatchee Bay in Walton County. The waters of Choctawhatchee Bay are Class II and the Department of Natural Resources has approved them for shellfishing. With a gas powered pump, petitioner jetted in two rows 40 feet long and ten feet apart of five pilings each and also built a bulkhead paralleling the rows of pilings and ten feet landward of them. On this foundation, he constructed a floor, including a porch floor cantilevered ten feet out waterward of the watermost row of pilings. Work had progressed through most, if not all, uprights on the first floor when the project came to the attention of state and federal environmental authorities, courtesy of a neighbor with whom petitioner had quarrelled (after the neighbor cut down trees on petitioner's property, to improve his view of the Bay). Construction has been at a standstill since. The bulkhead stands against the face of a bluff 20 feet high that is eroding not only as a result of wave action but also because of the deteriorating effect of groundwater in the area. Erosion is occurring at the rate of two feet or more annually. (Testimony of Kerr) There has been no appreciable scouring in front of the bulkhead or the pilings because old tires have been placed in an arc in front of the structure as a sort of revetment. The tires interrupt littoral movement of sand and exacerbate erosion downshore. Although waves can break against the base of the bluff itself, the approximate mean high water line at the time of the hearing was two to three feet landward of the first row of pilings. An area behind the first row of pilings is regularly and periodically inundated. When the pilings were originally placed, the approximate mean high water line was waterward of the pilings. NAVIGATION At high tide water underneath the house and even under the porch is only a few inches deep. Any boat tall enough to hit the porch would draw enough to run aground before getting that far. Ongoing erosion might result in deeper water at some point in the indeterminate future. VEGETATION In the beach area at the base of the bluff, including the project site at the time construction began, giant reed (phragmites communis) and salt meadow cord grass (spartina patens) are the predominant plant species. In full sunlight giant reeds grow as tall as eight feet and spartina patens gets as high as two or three feet. On top of the bluff are sand pine, slash pine, longleaf pine, magnolia, live oak, scrub oak, yaupon, ilex and other upland species. A few upland plants have fallen down from the top of the bluff and taken root at the base of the bluff, but they are a decided minority. There was little vegetation, mainly dewberries, under the half finished house at the time of hearing. According to the uncontroverted evidence, the United States Army had been on maneuvers in the vicinity and some of the approximately 29,000 men involved had selected the area underneath petitioner's structure as their bivouac, trampling the giant reeds and spartina patens underfoot. The giant reeds are rhizomatic and will inevitably reestablish themselves. The structure is high enough above the beach that enough sunlight will reach the ground for spartina patens to grow again, as well. Because of the shadow cast by the structure, however, the mass of the vegetation in the immediate area will be somewhat less than if the sun's rays were wholly unobstructed. These plants provide a habitat for fish, crabs and birds. They are food for microorganisms and larger forms of life alike. Their own food includes nitrogen, phosphorous, potash and carbon, all of which they tend to remove from water running off into the Bay, averting eutrophication. They also take up heavy metals, oils and greases which are washed down from State Road 20 just north of the site. OTHER STRUCTURES, PERMITS About two miles east of petitioner's lot are a house and a bar built on pilings pretty much in the same fashion as the house petitioner has started. They have been there at least since 1970. The Department of Environmental Regulation never issued any permit for their construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation has never permitted the building of a residence, part of which extended over navigable waters. The Department of Natural Resources has issued no permit in connection with petitioner's property or otherwise authorized the use of sovereignty lands or air space above such lands. WASTE DISPOSAL Petitioner had originally planned to install a septic tank on the state right of way, waterward of State Road 20, to receive both sewerage and other wastewater ("grey water"). The DOT had in fact issued a use permit to petitioner authorizing the installation, but DOT only considers highway safety in issuing such permits, and has since revoked the permit it issued to petitioner, pending his obtaining a septic tank permit from the local health department. Percolation tests, which are required before the local health department acts, have not been done. At the hearing, petitioner altered and supplemented his proposal for disposing of waste: He proposed to install a special composting toilet and, instead of a septic tank, a holding tank with a gauge that would indicate the level of grey water in the tank. HARDSHIP Petitioner owns no real estate other than the lot on which he began building this house. He now shares living quarters with his daughter and his widowed mother, who sleeps in the living room. His mother likes to paint, particularly sunsets. He started this project with the intention of building a place for her to live. Petitioner spent time and money on this project in the belief that the county building permit he obtained fully authorized him to do so. He had spoken to a man who built a similar house who said as much. If he is not allowed to use this structure, he will get no benefit from the time and money he has expended in constructing it to this point.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for variance. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Since 1915, the Leisey family has owned or controlled some 710 acres adjacent to Little Cockroach Bay in Hillsborough County. Leisey Shellpit, Inc. now proposes to develop some 55 acres of that property, which has in the past been utilized for row crops, citrus, timbering and mining. The proposed development is to include an 870-boat marina, of which approximately half would be dry storage, located on a 16-acre lake adjacent to the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The 16-acre lake was created through shell mining operations, and other lakes are to be part of the total project. Leisey proposes to widen and deepen existing mosquito ditches and existing canals or channels to provide access from the proposed marina to Cockroach Bay and the open waters of Tampa Bay. Adjacent to the marina lake, the proposed development also includes a flushing channel, a 250-seat restaurant, a 24-unit resort hotel or motel, a museum, fueling facilities with upland gas storage, an 8-boat ramp launching area, a convenience store, a boat repair facility, a dockmaster's office and 688 parking spaces. The total development further includes a 114-unit apartment complex and 23 single-family residential lots on other lakes nearby the marina lake, a stormwater and agricultural runoff system and a sewage treatment plant. Leisey proposes to widen and convert an existing mosquito ditch between the marina lake and Little Cockroach Bay to a flushing channel in order to accomplish a tidal flushing action in the marina lake. In order to provide access for boats, Leisey proposes to widen and dredge two parallel existing mosquito ditches running southwesterly from the marina lake and an existing channel running east-west along Cockroach Bay Road and extending into the Cockroach Bay channel. These access channels will be dredged to provide a 50- foot wide bottom in most areas with a minus 6 N.O.S. elevation for the bottom of the channels. In areas which do not need dredging, there exists a gentle slope of 6:1. Where excavation is to occur, there will be a 3:1 slope. The total amount of dredging contemplated is 175,000 cubic feet. The majority of the spoil material will be pumped through a polyethelene pipe to the marina lake until that lake is contoured to desired elevations. Secondary spoil sites for any surplus materials are available in lakes owned or controlled by the Leisey family. Depending upon economic and environmental considerations, Leisey intends to use a combination of dredging methods, including suction dredging, dragline dredging, and use of a cutter head dredge. In order to control turbidity, petitioner will utilize earth barricades, silt screens and double silt screens depending upon the type of dredging performed in various locations. The shellpit which is proposed to become the marina lake is not a state water at this time. It will become a state water at the time it is connected to other state waters by the proposed access channels and flushing channel. It would be classified as a Class III water body. The Cockroach Bay Channel which Leisey proposes to widen and dredge has not been dredged in the past. The applicant was unable to predict the extent to which future maintenance dredging would be required if it is widened and deepened to provide access to the proposed marina. The water body areas adjacent to the proposed marina, particularly Cockroach Bay, are presently classified by the Department of Natural Resources as approved for shellfish harvesting, and have been so classified since at least 1975. However, since December 10, 1984, the area has been temporarily closed for shellfish, oyster, clam and mussel harvesting. When a marina is constructed, it is the policy of the Department of Natural Resources to reclassify the area within the marina proper as prohibited for shellfish harvesting and to establish a buffer zone outward from the marina which also would be prohibited for the harvesting of shellfish. The size of the buffer zone is dependent upon the quality, design, hydrography and usage of the marina. The DNR considers a worst-case scenario in terms of potential biological contamination when establishing the size of the buffer zone. In the case of the potential marina, the size of the buffer zone would be hundreds, thousands of yards. It is the policy of the DER to deny a request for a variance if the proposed project would result in DNR closing an area previously approved for shellfish harvesting. Waters approved for shellfish harvesting are classified by DER as Class II waters. Aquatic preserves are designated by the State for the preservation or enhancement of the biological, aesthetic and scientific values of those areas. The boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve are described by statute in Section 258.391, Florida Statutes, and such description also defines the boundaries of the Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) classification of the DER. Due to cost considerations, the applicant did not perform a mean high water line survey to demonstrate the proper boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and the corresponding OFW boundaries. The statutory legal description of the Aquatic Preserve was derived from a lease given to the State by the Tampa Port Authority, to which the submerged lands in Hillsborough County had previously been dedicated. That description continuously makes reference to mean high water lines in Tampa Bay and the Little Manatee River. The applicant's professional land surveyor was of the opinion that the waters easterly of the islands offshore the proposed marina, including Little Cockroach Bay, are not a part of the Aquatic Preserve, and thus are not a part of the OFW designation. It was this witness's opinion that the only portion of the project to occur within the Aquatic Preserve is approximately 600 feet of the existing Cockroach Bay Channel to be dredged as an access channel. The DER's expert witness was of the opinion that the statutory legal description does include the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The intervenors presented testimony that, at the time the description of the Preserve was developed, the Tampa Port Authority did not consider Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body and intended it to be part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Preserve has been managed by the DNR as including the area of Little Cockroach Bay. The proposed marina lake is designed to be four feet deep at its edges and six feet deep In the central portion. An existing mosquito ditch is to be widened to provide a source of new water from Little Cockroach Bay on the incoming tide. At the conclusion of the flood tide, a computer-controlled gate will close, forcing water to exit through the access channels during the ebb tide. A flow directing wall will be installed for the purpose of promoting adequate water exchange in all portions of the marina. Petitioner's plans for the operation of the marina include a prohibition against live-aboards and a `no-head" policy. Fueling at the upland fuel pumps will be encouraged by a price differential. The upland fuel storage tanks are to be protected by barriers and earthen berms. The water side fueling facility is to be protected by a containment boom. In the event of a fuel spill, it is contemplated that the entire marina can be sealed off from outside waters by closing the flushing gates and by closing a turbidity curtain across the access channel. It is contemplated that a dockmaster or assistant will be on-site at the marina to ensure compliance with all rules and to handle any emergencies that may arise. In order to determine the viability of a given basin for use as a marina, it is appropriate to consider the flushing time or residence time -- the time necessary for water in a given system to exchange with waters in adjacent areas outside the system. In marinas that are tidally Influenced, flushing will, in large part, be a function of the tidal forcing. Utilizing a one-dimensional computer model, and assuming that no mixing occurs when water from the flushing channel enters the basin, the applicant predicts that the flushing or residence time of the basin will be approximately 4.2 days assuming a low tide, 5.6 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 6.6 days assuming a high tide. If one were to assume a completely mixed system, the flushing time would be 8.6 days assuming a low tide, 11.4 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 14 days assuming a high tide. Over a period of time, the tide level in the proposed basin will actually be represented by the range between high tide and low tide. Rather than assuming a low tide condition, it would be more accurate to use a tidally averaged or mid-tide volume of water. A no-mixing assumption does not take into account dead-water zones within a water basin. In reality, a marina would have some dead zones through the existence of the obstacle effect of objects such as boat hulls. Also, in this proposed marina, the area behind the deflection wall or flow directing wall would be outside the direct flow path and, thus, "dead" water. A one-dimensional model is typically utilized to predict the flushing times of narrow rivers or canals, as it represents tidal flow in only one direction in a straight line. A more appropriate model to utilize in a circular boat marina is a two-dimensional model. The tidal flushing of water bodies whose flow patterns are non-linear are more appropriately predicted by use of a two-dimensional model. The applicant failed to produce competent substantial evidence that the anti-fouling paints used on boats, as well as oils and greases typically produced by boats, would not violate Class III water quality standards in the marina lake and the access channels. It was also not demonstrated that Class III water standards for collform bacteria would be met. These factors are particularly important due to the potential for back flow which could cause marina waters to run back through the flushing canal into Little Cockroach Bay. Also, extreme weather events can force large volumes of water with high concentrations of contaminants out into Tampa Bay. While petitioner's water quality witnesses took samples and reviewed some of the available data base for the area dating back to 1950, the ambient water quality of Cockroach Bay for the period March 1, 1978, to March 1, 1979, was not established. The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission did have monitoring stations in the vicinity of this project during 1978 and 1979. Also, while the petitioner's experts did consider the effects of dredging during construction, the effects of turbidity from future boat traffic were not established. There are currently existing water quality violations with respect to dissolved oxygen in the Class II and Class III waters associated with the proposed project. The more accelerated export of detridal material, as well as the introduction of oils and greases from boats, will cause increased DO violations. The resuspension of fine materials and sediments resulting from dredging and boat traffic in the channels could further lower oxygen demands. The widening and dredging of the access channels proposed by the petitioner will result in the immediate removal of approximately 0.3 acres of seagrasses and about 3.09 acres of mangroves. Most of the seagrass impacts would occur at the western mouth of the Cockroach Bay access channel. Many of the mangroves to be removed are mature, healthy fifteen to twenty- foot trees. Secondary losses of seagrasses and mangroves can be expected from the turbulance and erosion caused by wakes and from propeller damages associated with greatly increased boat traffic in the area. Petitioner proposes to mitigate these secondary losses by providing channel markers, speed limit signs and "no wake" signs in the channel. With respect to the immediate losses, petitioner proposes to replace the 0.3 acres of seagrasses with 0.3 acres of new plantings in the proposed flushing canal. It is suggested that the marina will naturally be vegetated by seagrasses. Petitioner also offers as mitigation for the loss of seagrasses in the dredged access channels the fact that over one acre of hard substrate in the form of pilings and seawalls will be constructed at the marina. It is suggested that this acre would become colonized by sessile attached animals, such as barnacles and oysters, and by red algae, and that this assemblage would become a source of primary productivity and provide a filtering benefit similar in function to grass beds. With respect to mangrove mitigation, petitioner intends to plant six-foot high mangrove trees along the perimeter of the proposed marina lake and along portions of the access channel, and to scrape down an area near the north lake to provide suitable elevations for mangroves and higher marsh vegetation. In total, petitioner plans to replace the 3.09 acres of lost mangroves with 4.25 acres of replanted mangroves. Approximately 80% of the seagrasses in Tampa Bay have been destroyed by development. A significant fraction of the remaining seagrasses are located in the Cockroach Bay area. Seagrass mitigation is highly experimental. No successful seagrass mitigation has occurred in Tampa Bay. The success of replanting seagrasses in the proposed flushing canal is particularly suspect due to scouring, flushing velocities and the potential for poor water quality in the event of a reverse flow from the marina into the flushing channel. The increased salinity in the marina lake could adversely affect seagrasses located there. Propeller cuts are already apparent in Cockroach Bay, as boaters cross the seagrass meadows in order to reach prime fishing areas. An increased amount of boat traffic in the area could be expected to exacerbate such occurences. While mangrove replantings have achieved more success, the areas to be destroyed are mature large systems which provide a considerable detridal feeding base for the animals associated with them, as well as cover for animals, fish and invertebrates that utilize those areas. Many of the types of animals and fish that utilize mangrove areas, as well as seagrass areas, are attached organisms that do not migrate. Mangroves require a stable substrate. The remaining mangrove system in the access channels could change with increased boat traffic, especially in those areas where the slopes are to be reduced to 3:1. The DER does not yet have a promulgated rule regarding mitigation. Its present policy is to evaluate mitigation plans on a case-by-case, site- specific basis. No specific ratio between the impacted area and the mitigated area is required. Instead, it is the policy of DER to analyze various factors, such as the present condition of the area being dredged or filled in terms of the age of the vegetation and the functions being served; proximity of the area to special areas such as Class II waters or an OFW; proximity between the areas impacted and the area planned for mitigation; and past examples of success of the mitigation proposed. DER considers mitigation in relationship to the public interest review standards, and does not consider mitigation when reviewing water quality standards. It is the present policy of the DER to either avoid adverse impacts to healthy seagrasses or to require a lot of" mitigation for those areas which will be lost if the project proceeds. This policy is due to the lack of demonstrated success in replanting or recreating new seagrass communities. While the planting and growing of mangroves has been more successful, it is the policy of the DER to recognize that there is a time lag between the planting and successful growing. When a large, healthy mangrove system is being destroyed and replaced by younger, smaller trees, DER generally requires more than a one- to-one ratio in mitigation. It is the policy of DER to consider the creation of a barnacle habitat as mitigation only when the dredging or filling project itself impacts that type of habitat. Petitioner conducted studies which led to the conclusion that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not reduce the biological integrity or diversity by more than 25 percent. However, given the removal of seagrass meadows and the adverse effects from greatly increased numbers of boats in the area, the applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the biointegrity standards could be met. Manatees have been sited in Cockroach Bay and the Cockroach Bay boat channel. Due to its seagrasses and shallow waters, Cockroach Bay is one of the most important nursery areas for fish in Tampa Bay. Many wildlife species of special concern have been sited at or near the project site. These include the mangrove terrapin, the mangrove coocou, the brown pelican, the American alligator, the little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tri-colored heron. It is the policy of the DER, when considering the impact of a project upon fish and wildlife, to utilize all federal and state lists of endangered and threatened species. It is highly likely that increased boat traffic and human activity in the area will affect such wildlife. Several locations along the proposed north/south and east/west access channels could pose serious navigational difficulties due to restricted visibility. Given the potential number and sizes of boats in the access channels, manuevering problems can be expected, particularly during weekends. A boater must make a right angle turn where the north/south channel meets the east/west channel. A boat of 25 to 35 feet in length would have difficulty making such a turn in a fifty foot channel at speeds which would not produce a wake. If the vessel suffered engine failure or encountered other traffic at this turn, a hazardous navigational situation could arise. It would take a vessel approximately 20 to 30 minutes to travel at a safe speed from the marina to the mouth of the channel. It is common to observe boaters impatient to get into open waters or return home at the end of the day and navigating at speeds beyond that which is posted or in excess of that which is prudent or safe. Although not part of the application for variance or the instant permit application, petitioner offered evidence of its proposed stormwater management plan, sewage treatment plan, and agricultural runoff treatment plan. These plans are still conceptual in nature and would be the subject of future permitting requirements. Petitioner projects that these implemented plans will actually improve the water quality in the area of the project site. A porous concrete product is to be utilized for parking spaces and throughout the development except immediately adjacent to the marina. This product allows stormwater to pass through it and go into the groundwater, and it is designed to retain and break down oils and greases. Reversed sloping around the marina lake and access channels are to be used to prevent any direct discharge of stormwater. Flow is to be directed away from the marina through grasssed swales into retention ponds and into other isolated lakes. An advanced wastewater treatment plant, with a hyacinth treatment lake, is planned to provide sewage treatment for both this development and the surrounding communities, with an ultimate capacity of 250,000 gallons per day. The treated effluent, after going through the treatment lake will be directed into a rapid exfiltration trench to sheet flow into the mangroves. Petitioner also plans to redirect existing agricultural runoff, identified as being a present source of pollution to water in the area, so that it would go into several lakes and ultimately exit through rapid exfiltration trench sheet flow into the mangroves. In 1983, one of the greatest paleontological finds in this country occurred in one of the mine pits on the Leisey property. Over two hundred and fifty thousand specimens were obtained. Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the Florida State Museum whereby a museum will be constructed near the proposed marina, and displays from the paleontological discovery and other archeological exhibits from the Leisey property will be shown in an educational format. Petitioner has offered to dedicate the museum to the State. Should petitioner receive all permits required for construction of its proposed marina development, the Leisey family has offered to dedicate approximately 54 acres of mangrove lands near Little Cockroach Bay to the Tampa Port Authority or other appropriate entity for preservation purposes. There does appear to be a shortage of available marina spaces in Tampa Bay. However, there is a pending application before DER for an expansion of an existing marina in the vicinity, and other sites along the Bay would be of lesser conflict with existing seagrasses and mangrove systems. If petitioner's marina facility were constructed and operated as proposed, it would serve as a port of refuge to boaters during storms. Petitioner also proposes to reserve two of the eight boat ramp spaces for public safety and environmental agency personnel so that boats can be quickly launched and retrieved in emergency situations. The provision of an eight- space boat ramp and the 432 wet slips and 438-boat dry storage will increase public access to the off-shore waters. The proximity of the Tampa Ship Channel results in direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, and recreational activity will be enhanced by the project. In this proceeding, the burden to demonstrate that the proposed marina project complies with all applicable statutes, rules and policies of the DER and to provide reasonable assurances that the State's water quality standards will not be violated rests with the applicant, Leisey Shellpit, Inc. Due to the location of the proposed project, that burden is heavy and somewhat complicated. Surface waters in Florida are classified according to their present and future most beneficial uses, and water quality criteria have been developed to maintain the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of the water for the designated uses. Section 403.061(10), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, certain waters, due to their exceptional recreational or ecological significance, have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), with the intent that they be afforded the highest degree of protection. Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes. A designation of a water body as an OFW is a determination that the environmental, social and economic benefits of the special protection outweigh the environmental, social and economic costs. Rule 17-3.041(:2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The waters within and adjacent to the proposed project in this proceeding include OFW entitled to the highest protection, Class II waters with the designated use of "shellfish propagation or harvesting," and Class III waters with the designated use of "recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife." Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. As such, this project is subject to numerous statutory and regulatory requirements. The waters adjacent to the proposed marina, access channels and flushing channels are Class II waters. As such, Rule 17-4.28(8), Florida Administrative Code, governs requests to dredge and fill in those areas. That rule provides as follows: "(8)(a) The department recognizes the special value and importance of Class II waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. Therefore, it shall be the department's policy to deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging or filling activities in Class II waters, except where the applicant has submitted a plan of procedure which will adequately protect the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage. The department shall not issue a permit for dredging or filling directly in areas approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. Provided, however, that the staff of the department may issue permits or certifications for maintenance dredging of existing navigational channels, for the construction of coastal protection structures and for the installation of transmission and distribution lines for carrying potable water, electricity or communication cables in rights-of-way previously used for such lines. (b) The department shall also deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging and/or filling activities in any class of waters where the proximity of such activities to Class II waters would be expected to have an impact on the Class II waters, and where reasonable assurance has not been provided that the activities will not result in violations of the applicable provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, in the Class II waters. Petitioner does not dispute that the waters are Class II waters. In spite of the fact that a variance from the rule was requested, petitioner contends that the prohibition against dredging in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources" is not applicable here because the area is now temporarily closed to shellfish harvesting. In the alternative, petitioner contends that even if these waters are "approved" for shellfish harvesting, it is entitled to a permit to "maintenance dredge an existing navigational channel." This latter contention is without merit. There was no evidence that the access channels proposed to be widened and deepened had been previously dredged. Indeed, the evidence was to the contrary. Consequently, the proposed activity cannot be categorized as "maintenance dredging." Moreover, neither the proposed north/south access channel nor the proposed flushing channel are "existing navigational channels." Petitioner's argument with regard to a distinction between an area "approved" and an area "temporarily closed" to shellfish harvesting is initially logically appealing. However, the argument fails to recognize the purpose of the Class II designated use -- shellfish propagation or harvesting, as well as the DER policy to deny a request for a variance when a project would result in the permanent loss of an area for shellfish harvesting. It was undisputed that DNR establishes buffer zones around marinas within which shellfish harvesting is prohibited, and that the size of the buffer zone is dependent, in part, upon the size of the marina. The area "buffered" would be permanently, as opposed to temporarily, closed for shellfish harvesting. The DER's policy to deny permits or variance requests when the project would result in the permanent closure of a significant area for shellfish harvesting is supported by the remainder of Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), as well as by the purpose for the Class II designation. Thus, under the facts of this case, it is concluded that the prohibition against dredging and filling in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources," as set forth In Rule 17- 4.28(8)(a), is applicable and that petitioner has failed to demonstrate entitlement to a variance from that prohibition. Even if petitioner were entitled to a variance, it has not provided reasonable assurances that the short and long term effects of the proposed activities will not violate water quality standards and public interest requirements so as to be entitled to a dredge and fill permit. As noted above, Outstanding Florida Waters are entitled to the highest degree of protection. An applicant for a permit to conduct activities which significantly degrade or are within such waters is required to affirmatively demonstrate that the activity meets the criteria set forth In Rule 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Among those criteria are that the activities be "clearly in the public interest and that the "existing ambient water quality," within the OFW not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. "Existing ambient water quality" is defined in Rule 17-4.242(1)(d) as the water quality which could reasonably be expected (based upon the best scientific information available) to have existed for the year prior to the OFW designation. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve was designated as an OFW on March 1, 1979. Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the appropriate year for determining the "existing ambient water quality" of that OFW is from March 1, 1978, through March 1, 1979. Petitioner admits that at least 600 feet of the proposed east/west access channel is within the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. Since a mean high water survey was not conducted by the petitioner, or otherwise presented in this proceeding, the undersigned is unable to render a conclusion regarding the precise boundaries of the Aquatic Preserve or the coextensive OFW designation. It is persuasive that the DNR has managed the Preserve as though Little Cockroach Bay were included within it and that the Tampa Port Authority, from whom the lease to the State was derived, has not recognized Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body. In any event, at least a portion of the proposed activity will be conducted within an OPW, and petitioner has failed to establish the ambient water quality of those waters for the relevant time period. As a result, petitioner has failed to meet its burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the proposed activity will not lower the quality of that water. While the petitioner did present evidence regarding the current condition of the waters and some historical data was reviewed, there was no affirmative demonstration of the quality of water which existed between March 1, 1978, and March 1, 1979. It simply was not established that petitioner relied upon the best scientific evidence available in its attempt to demonstrate that "existing ambient water quality" would not be lowered by the proposed activity. The operation of an 870-slip marina, along the public boat ramps, will generate a large amount of pollutants. Constant and heavy boat traffic within the marina lake and going in and cut of the area on a daily basis can be expected to continuously resuspend contaminants and pollutants. Given these factors, it was particularly incumbent upon the petitioner to make accurate predictions regarding flushing times, and to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated as a result of the proposed activity. The use of a one-dimensional model, along with the assumptions of no mixing and low tide conditions within the basin, does not provide adequate or accurate predictions with respect to the flushing or residence time of the proposed marina lake. The use of these flushing model computations to make water quality predictions for the lake and channels undermines those predictions. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards, particularly with regard to dissolved oxygen, for Class II and III waters will not be violated on a short and long term basis. Without such assurances, and also considering the loss of healthy seagrasses and mangroves which will result from both dredging and continued boat traffic in the area, the proposed project Is not permittable. As stated In Rule 17- 3.011(5), Florida Administrative Code: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. When an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because the existing water quality does not meet standards, mitigation measures which cause net Improvement of the water quality may be considered. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In mitigation, the petitioner has offered its plans for stormwater management, agricultural run-off and sewage treatment to demonstrate that water quality conditions will be improved by the overall development contemplated. Without a reasonably accurate prediction of the extent to which the proposed project and related activities will cause or contribute to existing DO violations, as well as other violations, in the subject waters, It is impossible to determine whether these mitigation measures will cause a net Improvement of the water quality in the area. In addition, the plans for the proposed stormwater management, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment systems were conceptual in nature. Until more detailed plans are developed, it is impossible to determine whether future permit applications for those projects would be acceptable. The petitioner's mitigation plans for the removal of seagrasses and mangroves is likewise unacceptable. Attempts to replant seagrasses, especially in Tampa Bay, have not been successful and are in an experimental stage. Petitioner's proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio is not appropriate for seagrasses due to the possible failure of its attempts, the proposed location of the replantings, and the expectation of secondary losses from boat traffic, erosion and potential future maintenance dredging. While the replanting of mangroves have a past record of success, a larger than 1:1 ratio would be appropriate to account for the difference in functions between a healthy system of large trees and the replanting of smaller trees, to account for the secondary losses which may be expected from greatly increased boat traffic and to account for the difference in locations between the trees to be removed and the trees to be replanted. An applicant must also provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project is "not contrary to the public Interest" or, in the case of the presence of Outstanding Florida Waters, that the project will be "clearly in the public interest." In making public interest determinations, the Legislature has set forth seven criteria to be considered and balanced, and has allowed applicants to offer measures to mitigate adverse effects. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. The seven factors are: 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 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to demonstrate that its Mangrove Bay Marina proposal is not contrary to and is clearly in the public interest, petitioner offers its mitigation plans previously discussed with regard to seagrasses, mangroves, stormwater, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment. It is contended that these features of the total project, along with the provision of a secure and well-policed facility, will have a beneficial effect upon public health, safety and welfare and will conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. It is also urged that its well- marked and maintained channels will Improve navigation and not contribute to harmful shoaling or erosion and will provide for an adequate flow of water. Safe mooring, boat storage and public boat ramps will enhance fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity will not be adversely affected, according to the applicant. Finally, the petitioner offers its museum with educational programs to demonstrate enhancement to significant historical and archaeological resources. There can be no doubt that the applicant has attempted to develop a proposal which will satisfy environmental, as well as social, concerns. It is also true that the marina project would satisfy the need for additional boat slips In the Tampa Bay area. The prime problem is the location of the proposed project. The Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay areas are relatively undisturbed by development. The area is Important as a research area and as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. The designation of waters adjacent to and within the proposed project site as Outstanding Florida Waters and Class II waters establishes their importance and govern the manner in which activities therein are to be evaluated. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project complies with water quality criteria and public Interest considerations applicable to these wetlands. The long and short term adverse environmental impacts upon water quality, seagrasses and mangroves are sufficient to justify a denial of the permit application. Those considerations, coupled with the disruption of wildlife habitat, the hazardous design of the marina channels, the destruction of a highly productive aquatic system without appropriate mitigation, and the potential of harming manatees, far outweigh any positive benefits of the project. The paleontology museum, while serving a laudable educational function, will not serve as mitigation for any estuarine loss and the historical and archaeological resources to be considered under Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, refer to historic properties representing more than 10,000 years of human presence. In short, while the project may provide some advantages with regard to recreation and public safety, its adverse effects upon fish, wildlife, harmful erosion and shoaling, marine productivity and the present condition and value of the functions being performed in the area are contrary to the public interest. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest that would outweigh these considerations. As a final matter, it was stipulated that Manasota-88, Inc., the Florida Audubon Society, Eagle Audubon Society and Tampa Audubon Society had standing to participate as intervenors in this proceeding. Petitioner's motion in opposition to the intervention status of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was initially denied, subject to that organization presenting proof of its standing at the hearing. The Council failed to produce such proof, and its petition to intervene is accordingly denied.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the requests of Leisey Shellpit, Inc. for a variance and a permit and certification to construct and operate the Mangrove Bay Marina and attendant access and flushing channels be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0568, 86-0569 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner Leisey: 6, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 7, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 9, last sentence Rejected; the evidence. demonstrates that the words "temporarily closed" should be substituted for "not approved." 11, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 14, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 18, last sentence Rejected; not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 19, last two sentences Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 20, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 21, last three sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence as to "existing ambient water quality. 23, last three sentences Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 24, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 25, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 28, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 30 - 33 Accepted, with a recognition that the plans are conceptual in nature, and not detailed as required for permitting purposes. 35, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 43, third sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. Respondent, DER: 2 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 16, first sentence Rejected as to the words "will occur," as opposed to "could occur." 70 Rejected; insufficient evidence was adduced to render a finding regarding the precise OFW boundaries. 76 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 85 Rejected as to the specifics of the permitability of other sites, as not established by competent, substantial evidence. 94, last sentence Rejected as speculative. 96 Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 99 Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. 102 Rejected, as speculative. 113 Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Intervenor Manasota-88: This party's post-hearing submittal contains mixed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed factual findings are generally accepted and have been addressed in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Robert, Egan & Routa, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Robert S. Tucker, Esquire Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Blvd., Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 M. Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mills owns a 105 acre tract of land on which he raises cattle. This land is directly east of South Bull Pond in Putnam County, Florida. The land which he proposes to fill lies within the landward extent of South Bull Pond. The pond is a natural lake of approximately 350 acres which does not become dry each year. The lake has a maximum average depth of greater than 2 feet throughout the year. Its shoreline is owned by more than one person. South Bull Pond is a Class III water of the State of Florida. Petitioner's proposed project involves the excavation of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sand and muck from the lake bottom. He plans to place the fill in an area adjacent to the dredge site but within the landward extent of the lake. The area to be excavated is 200 feet long and 50 feet wide. The area to be filled with spoil material is the same size immediately to the east of the dredge area. The excavation will be approximately three feet deep into the lake bottom. Mr. Mills' application indicates that the purpose of the proposed work is to keep his cows out of the bog and also to increase the value of his property. The proposed dredging and filling will result in the permanent elimination of approximately one-half acre of natural vegetation along the lake. This area consists of a natural berm formed by alluvial deposits and a wet bog landward of the berm. There is an opening through the berm which allows the free exchange of waters between the main body of the lake and the bog area. The top elevation of the berm is such that the berm area is submerged for long periods of time. Ordinary high water inundates the berm and passes over it into the bog which is at a lower elevation than the berm. The field appraisal of the proposed site was conducted by Mr. John Hendrix, a Department biologist, on May 5, 1981. The site consists of three areas: the lakeshore, the berm, and the bog. The dominate species along the lakeshore are Saw grass (Cladium jamaicensis), Water Lily (Nymphaea spp.), Pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata), and Spatter dock (Nuphar spp.). The dominant fresh water species on the berm are: Saw grass (Cladium jamaicensis), and Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.). Two transitional fresh water species also grow on the berm: St. John's wort (Hypericum fasciculatum) and Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The dominant species of the bog, which is landward of the berm, are Water Lily (nymphaea spp.), Water shield (Brasenia schreberi), Royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.). The lake is presently mesotrophic. It has a large productive vegetative structure primarily along the shoreline. The nutrients are "tied up" or stored in the marshes and peaty sediments of this shoreline and are not freely circulating in the main water body. The shoreline vegetation provides filtration for the main water body. The plants physically entrap sediments and biochemically assimilate them. They also store nutrients which otherwise degrade the water in the lake. The proposed dredging and filling will degrade water quality in two ways: 1) The equipment used for dredging will disrupt the sediments. They will then discharge freely into the water column of the lake and release their stored nutrients. 2) The berm and bog areas will be destroyed so that they can no longer stabilize the shoreline or provide the filtration function. Adverse water quality impacts from the project will be both short and long term. The short terms impacts include expected violations of the following water quality criteria found in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code: BOD; dissolved oxygen; transparency; biological integrity; turbidity; pH; nuisance species; and both nutrients criteria. The long term impacts will include stimulation of shifting of the natural balance of the lake towards a more eutrophic state and violation of the water quality criteria for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, BOD and transparency. Petitioner wants to fill the bog to prevent injury to his cows. A workable alternative to filling the bog is to erect a fence across the property to exclude the cows from that area. The drawings submitted by Petitioner as part of his application show that the operation of the dredging machinery would be from the berm. During the hearing Petitioner indicated that such machinery would be operating from the lakeshore. This modification would create fewer short term violations of water quality criteria. However, the following criteria would still be violated: BOD, turbidity, nuisance species, biological integrity, dissolved oxygen, transparency and nutrients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's permit application. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie L. Mills Route 2, Box 244 Hawthorne, Florida 32640 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Indian Beach Manor, Section A, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 48, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with a parcel of submerged land in The Narrows in Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida (Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 13). The real estate in question is located at Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, and abuts that portion of the Intracoastal Waterway between Clearwater Harbor and Boca Ciega Bay called The Narrows. The property in question is approximately 200 feet wide and 500 feet long consisting of some 2.3 acres. It is bounded on the east by The Narrows, with Gulf Boulevard on the west, 191st Avenue on the north, and a boat channel extending approximately 300 feet from The Narrows on the south. The land is located within the intertidal zone below the line of mean high water and is vegetated approximately 75 percent by red and black mangrove trees. At high tide, the property is completely inundated. During low tide periods, a considerable amount of firm tidal flat is exposed. Meandering through the flats are several streams that connect intracoastal waters with shallow pools enclosed by mangroves. At the northwest corner of the property on 191st Avenue is located a city-owned storm sewer pipe which spills stormwater drainage down a ditch which crosses the property add discharges on the east side (Exhibits 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, Composite Exhibit 14, testimony of Albrecht). In April, 1974, Petitioners applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County to fill Lots 1-4. After first denying the application, the board, sitting as the Pinellas a County Water and Navigation Control Authority, held a rehearing and approved the application on December 17, 1974, subject to the approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. By Resolution 25-74, December 10, 1974, the town council, Indian Shores, Florida, had urged the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority to grant the permit as being in the best interests of that town in that it would eliminate a health and welfare menace to the town's citizens (Composite Exhibit 1). Petitioners then made application to the Department of Pollution Control for water quality certification under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. On April 1, 1975, they were informed by that Department that their application was denied. Petitioners then jailed a petition for review of the denial on April 8, 1975. In their Petition, it was stated that the application for water quality certification was part of a fill only and seawall permit application pending before the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. They contended that the water quality standards contained in Chapter 17-3 were not applicable to their application because there would be no discharge of any kind into state waters. The original application to fill and construct a seawall that had been pending before the Trustees was thereafter transferred to Respondent agency as part of the reorganization of state environmental agencies in 1975. On February 2, 1976, Petitioners were advised by Respondent that it intended to recommend denial to the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation of Petitioners' application for a Chapter 403 and 253 permit and Water Quality Certification under P.L. 92-500 based on biological assessments of August 15, 1974, and January 28, 1975, and a water quality report of April 1) 1975. Petitioners then requested a hearing on February 6, 1976 (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5). Respondent based its proposed denial generally on the determination that filling of the intertidal mangrove area and the navigable shallow bayous would have material adverse effects on marine life and wildlife and would not be in the best interests of conservation of marine biological resources (Exhibit 4). The property is essentially a cul de sac with less than the usual water flow exchange by tides and there is some impoundment of the water that flows through the roads and adjacent property. There is evidence of pollution of the water by reason of the culvert and ditch which drains from the northwest boundary of the property. A certain amount of wash from boat traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway undoubtedly introduces additional pollutants into the area. The property also has been used as a dumping ground to some extent and a borrow pit exists at the northwest corner of the property. Water samples taken in July, 1976, reflected pollution, primarily as to nitrogen and sulfur, in the area whore the stormwater drainage culvert empties onto the property. Filling of the land will remove much of the present pollutants caused by stormwater runoff (Testimony of Davis, Exhibit 6) In spite of the pollution of the water, the property in question is a productive mangrove system. The shallow bottoms function as feeding areas for animal life and the vegetation provides a diversified habitat for the estuary. Prop roots and pneumatophores of the red and black mangroves are covered with barnacles, oysters and other shellfish, and live oyster bars are found on the flats. Various species of red, green and brown algae vegetate the shallow streams and pools. Export of mangrove detritus which is biologically important as a basic food chain substance is very evident. An acre of mangroves can produce almost 8,000 pounds of detritus for herbivores a year which is transported out by the tide. Detritus is the sole diet for adult mullet. Marine life and wildlife observed in the area consists of a variety of fish, invertebrates, and birds (Exhibits 4 and 17, testimony of Burdett, Knight, Matthews). During the period from 1943 when the Indian Beach Manor area was platted until 1975, approximately 300 feet (about half of the platted depth of the lot) had been lost through erosion. The proposed seawall will be 5' 7" high and will tie into an existing seawall on adjoining city property to the north. Petitioners plan to create a dike four or five feet high across the eastern shore boundary of the land, pump out the water, and fill with Florida sand to elevate the land about six feet (Testimony of Albrecht, Campbell).
Recommendation That Petitioners' application for a permit to fill and construct a seawall under Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Caleen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman W. Goldner, Esquire P.O. Drawer 14233 St. Petersburg, FL 33733
