The Issue The issue in this case is whether to grant the appeal of Valentinos Koumoulidis from the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of his application for variances from the requirement of a minimum lot width of 150 feet at the setback line and from the requirement of a minimum of 20 percent clear space.
Findings Of Fact When the Appellant, Valentinos Koumoulidis, bought the subject property, the building was being used as a six-unit motel--three units on each of two floors. There were approximately 1600 square feet of space on each of the two floors. The property fronts at 606 Bayway Boulevard; the back of the property is waterfront. In 1991, the Appellant applied for and was granted a parking variance and variances to enable him to convert the first floor to retail use and convert the second floor to a residence. Apparently construction was delayed, and in October, 1992, the Appellant reapplied for the variances to enable him to convert the first floor to retail use and convert the second floor to a residence, while withdrawing the application for a parking variance. (He had decided to convert from straight- in/back-out parking to an off-street parking lot.) In 1994, the Appellant again applied for variances, this time to allow him to add approximately 300 square feet of commercial space to the back of the first floor and approximately 900 square feet of residential space to the back of the second floor. The Board denied those variance requests in October, 1994. Rather than appeal, the Appellant decide not to pursue the addition of commercial space to the back of the first floor and, on December 22, 1994, instead applied for variances to allow him just to add approximately 900 square feet of residential space to the back of the second floor. (Of the 900 square feet, approximately 550 would be enclosed, and approximately 350 would be open deck.) The evidence (primarily through the testimony of Noel Woods, one of the Appellant's neighbors) was that the residential property in the immediate vicinity is comparable, in terms of square footage of living space per dwelling unit, to the Appellant's current second floor--i.e., approximately 1600 to 1700 square feet. There was some evidence that residential properties across the intracoastal waterway from the Appellant's property are valued as high as a million dollars. But the evidence (again, the testimony of Noel Woods) also was that condominium units in the immediate vicinity are valued at approximately $175,000. There was no evidence that the use the Appellant is making of his property (retail on the first floor and residential on the second floor) is not a reasonable use.
Findings Of Fact Fred Thomas owns a home and lot on the beach in Clearwater at 730 Eldorado Avenue, Mandalay Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 8, now zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Thomas house was built 30 years ago when front yard setbacks for the area were only 10 feet and there were no open space requirements. Now the front setback in the area is 25 feet, and Section 135.029(8) of the Clearwater Land Development Code now requires lots in RS-8 zones to have a minimum open space of 35 percent of the lot and 40 percent of the front yard. There are many properties in the area of the Thomas house that maintain pre- existing non- conformities to the current setback and open space requirements. The Thomas property, in addition to the pre-existing setback non-conformity, had only 26 percent open space overall and no open space at all (all concrete) in the front yard. In 1987, Thomas undertook renovations to his house. During construction, Thomas' concrete front yard deteriorated from additional cracking, and he decided to replace the concrete with brick pavers. He removed the concrete but then was required to get a building permit for this work. The building permit was not granted because the placement of brick pavers in the front yard violated the open space requirements. Thomas applied for a variance to replace the concrete with brick pavers and later modified the application to be allowed to have 29 percent lot coverage and 12 percent front yard coverage with open space. The modified application was denied by the DCAB after hearing on February 11, 1988, and Thomas took this appeal. Thomas also filed another variance application to be allowed to have 30 percent lot coverage and 16.8 percent front yard coverage with open space. This application was heard on March 10, 1988, and this time the DCAB granted the application. The only open space required under the granted variance not required under the denied variance application is a 10' by 10' square on the far left side of the front yard (facing the house). Thomas claims that this open space requirement prevents him from using a narrow concrete alley to the left of the house (and perhaps the concrete apron in the back of the house) for guest parking, leaving him with a two-car garage and the brick paved area directly in front of the garage that could accommodate two cars but would block the garage. Lack of guest parking would create a hardship of sorts on Thomas. There is no on-street parking in the area, and the Clearwater Police vigorously patrol and ticket violators in the area. The brick paved spaces in front of the garage could be inconvenient to the owners of the vehicles parked in the garage (probably the Thomases) and conceivably could block the cars in the garage temporarily under some circumstances. However, Thomas is incorrect in his presumption that guest parking in the alley and back of the house would be blocked by the 100 square feet of open space required under the granted variance but not under the denied variance application.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether IP is entitled to issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number FL0002526-001/001-IW1S ("the proposed permit"), Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-1442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730 (collectively, "the Department authorizations"), which would authorize IP to discharge treated industrial wastewater from its paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, into wetlands which flow to Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay.
Findings Of Fact Introduction A. The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006),2 to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation3 established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the President of FOPB. Mellita A. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane are the adult children of Dr. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane. Dr. Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay with their son Peter. The Adjacent Waters The mill's wastewater effluent 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 III 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 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay is designated as a Class III 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. It is primarily a freshwater river but it is sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) in 1979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, is a large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern part is 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. The Mill 1. Production 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 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. 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 is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. There are two paper machines located at the mill. The larger paper machine, designated P5, produces approximately 1,000 tons per day of writing and printing paper. The smaller machine, P4, produces approximately 400 to 500 tons per day of "fluff pulp." 2. The Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant The existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at the mill is described in the revised NPDES permit as a "multi-pond primary and secondary treatment system, consisting of a primary treatment system (primary settling basin, polymer addition, two solids/sludge dewatering basins, and a floating dredge), and secondary treatment system (four ponds in series; two aerated stabilization basins with approximately 2,200 horsepower (HP) of aeration capacity, a nutrient feed system, two non-aerated polishing ponds and a final riffle section to re-aerate the effluent)." The WWTP is a system for reducing the biological oxygen demand (BOD) of the mill's wastewater by bacteria. IP’s wastewater is nutrient deficient when it enters the WWTP. Nutrients in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen must be added for the growth of bacteria. The WWTP begins with a primary settling basin in which suspended solids settle to the bottom. The solids form a sludge that is pumped by hydraulic dredge into two dewatering basins. The dewatering basins are used alternately so that, as one pond is filled, water is removed from the other pond. After being dewatered, the sludge is removed and allowed to dry. Then, it is transported to a landfill located about five miles west of the mill on land owned by IP. The water removed from the dewatering basins moves into to the first aeration basin. The aeration basin has floating aerator devices that add oxygen to facilitate biological conversion of the wastewater. The wastewater then flows sequentially through three more basins where there is further oxygenation and settling of the biological solids. The discharge from the fourth settling basin flows through a riffle section where the effluent is aerated using a series of waterfalls. This is the last element of the treatment process from which the mill's effluent enters waters of the state. Chemicals are added during the treatment process to control phosphorus and color. Chemicals are also added to suppress foam. Sanitary wastewater from the mill, after pretreatment in an activated sludge treatment system, is "sewered" to the mill's WWTP and further treated in the same manner as the industrial wastewater. A separate detention pond collects and treats stormwater from onsite and offsite areas and discharges at the same point as the wastewater effluent from the WWTP. Stormwater that falls on the industrial area of the mill is processed through the WWTP. The discharge point from the WWTP, and the point at which the effluent is monitored for compliance with state effluent limitations, is designated D-001, but is also called the Parshall Flume. The effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to an area of natural wetlands. After passing through the wetlands, the combined flow runs through a pipe that enters Elevenmile Creek from below the surface. This area is called the "boil" because the water can be observed to boil to the surface of Elevenmile Creek. From the boil, the mill effluent flows approximately 14 miles down (apparently misnamed) Elevenmile Creek to upper Perdido Bay. Regulatory History of the Mill 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 EPA issued St. Regis an NPDES permit 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 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 WWTP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class III 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.4 In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for a regular 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 violation 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 recommended 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 by a series of related scientific studies, which will be referred to collectively in this Recommended Order 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 TOP established the following specific effluent discharge limitations for the mill: Monthly Average Maximum Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Mar-Oct) 4,500 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 5,100 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Mar-Oct) 8,000 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 11,600 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day Iron 3.5 mg/l Specific Conductance 2,500 micromhos/cm Zinc .075 mg/l The limits stated above for iron, specific conductance, and zinc were derived from the variance granted to Champion. Champion was also granted variances from the water quality standards for biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and DO. The 1989 Consent Order, TOP, and variance were the subject of the Recommended Order and Final Order issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. v. Champion International Corporation, 89 ER FALR 153 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). Champion's deviation from the standards for iron, zinc, and specific conductance pursuant to the variance was determined to present no significant risk of adverse effect on the water quality and biota of Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. The mill effluent's effect on transparency (reduced by color in the mill effluent) was considered a potentially significant problem. However, because it was found that there was no practicable means known or available to reduce the color, and there was insufficient information at that time to determine how Champion's discharge of color was affecting the biota, Champion was allowed to continue its discharge of color into Elevenmile Creek pending the results of the Livingston studies. In the administrative hearing, the petitioners argued that it was unreasonable to put off compliance for five years, but the hearing officer determined that five years was reasonable under the circumstances. One finding in the Recommended Order and a reason for recommending approval of the TOP and Consent Order was: After the studies referred to in the consent order, the Department will not allow Champion additional time to study problems further. Significant improvements will be required within the five year period and at the end of that period, the plant will be in compliance with all water quality standards or will be denied an operating permit, with related enforcement action. The requirement of the 1989 Consent Order that Champion be in compliance with all applicable standards by December 1994, was qualified with the words "unless otherwise agreed." In considering this wording, the hearing officer opined that any change in the compliance deadline "would require a new notice of proposed agency action and point of entry for parties who might wish to contest any modification in the operational requirements, or changes in terms of compliance with water quality standards." The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1994. 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 1995, 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 FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. In summary, the permit requirements currently applicable to the operation of the Cantonment paper mill are contained in the following documents: January 3, 1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) December 13, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State-issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) 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 Elevenmile Creek or the Escambia River. In 2001, IP and Champion merged and IP applied to the Department to have the mill permit and related authorizations transferred to IP. Dr. Lane formally challenged the proposed transfer, but she was determined to lack standing. One conclusion of law in the Recommended Order issued in the 2001 administrative case was that the mill was in compliance with the consent order, TOP, and variance. That conclusion was not based on a finding that Champion was in compliance with all applicable water quality standards, but that the deadline for compliance (December 1, 1994) had been extended indefinitely by the pending permit renewal application. In 2001, Dr. Lane twice petitioned the Department for a declaratory statement regarding the Department's interpretation of certain provisions of the 1989 Consent Order. The first petition was denied by the Department because Dr. Lane failed to adequately state her interests and because she was a party in a pending case in which the Consent Order was at issue. Dr. Lane second petition was denied for similar reasons. Over 14 years after the deadline established in the 1989 TOP for the mill to be in compliance with all applicable standards in Elevenmile Creek, IP is still not meeting all applicable standards. However, the combination of (1) Consent Order terms that contemplated unspecified future permit requirements based on yet-to-be-conducted studies, (2) the wording in the TOP that tied the deadline for compliance to the expiration of the TOP, and (3) the administrative extension of the TOP, kept the issue of Champion's and IP's compliance in a regulatory limbo. It increased the Department's discretion to determine whether IP was in compliance with the laws enacted to protect the State's natural resources, and reduced the opportunity of interested persons to formally disagree with that determination. The Proposed Authorizations A. In General 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 to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to a 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP5, 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 issued a Notice of Intent to Issue the proposed NPDES permit, together with Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-4442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730. An exemption from water quality criteria in conjunction with the experimental use of wetlands for wastewater treatment is provided for in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). The proposed exemption order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed waiver order is associated with the experimental use of wetlands exemption and relieves IP of the necessity to comply with two exemption criteria related to restricting public access to the area covered by the exemption. The Department and IP contend that restricting public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes is unnecessary. The proposed Consent Order is an enforcement document that is necessary if the mill is to be allowed to operate despite the fact that its wastewater discharge is causing violations of water quality standards. A principal purpose of the proposed Consent Order is to impose a time schedule for the completion of corrective actions and compliance with all state standards. The proposed Consent Order would supersede the 1989 Consent Order. The Proposed NPDES Permit 1. WWTP Upgrades IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a modest reduction of BOD and TSS. Upgraded pond 1 is expected to convert soluble BOD to suspended solids and to accomplish other biological conversions seven or eight times faster than the current pond 1. The modification of pond 3 to an activated sludge system is expected to more rapidly remove and recycle the solids back into pond 1. Pond 3 will have a much larger bacterial population to treat the effluent. There would also be additional pH control at the end of pond 3. IP would continue to use its Rock Crossing Landfill for disposal of wastewater sludge removed from the WWTP. Authorization for the landfill is part of the proposed NPDES permit. Groundwater monitoring beneath the landfill is required. The WWTP upgrades would include increased storm surge capacity by converting two existing aeration and settling basins (ponds 2 and 4) to storm surge basins. The surge basins would allow the mill to manage upsets and to withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event of 11 inches of rain. Rainfall that falls into the production areas would flow to the WWTP, and be impounded in ponds 2 and 4. After the storm event this impounded water would flow back through the WWTP where it would be treated before flowing through the compliance point and into the pipeline to the wetland tract. The Department required IP to monitor for over 129 pollutants in its stormwater runoff from the mill’s manufacturing facility, roads, parking lots, and offsite nonpoint sources. No pollutants were found in the stormwater at levels of concern. The average volume of mill discharge would be mgd. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP along with other process wastewater, be treated in the same manner in the WWTP, and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. 2. Effluent Limitations The effluent limitations required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based and are designed to limit the amount of pollutants that may be discharged per ton of product produced. The Cantonment mill has not had a problem in meeting TBELs. The TBELs that IP must meet are in the "Cluster Rule" promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department. The mill already meets the TBELS applicable to its current bleaching operation. In fact, EPA determined that the mill was performing in the top 5 percent of similar mills in the nation. The mill would have to meet the TBELs for a brown kraft operation if that conversion is made by IP. The proposed permit also imposes water quality- based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. For example, the TBEL for BOD for similar pulp and paper mills is 15,943 pounds per day (ppd) on a monthly average, but the WQBEL for BOD for the Cantonment mill would be 4,500 ppd in summer and 5,100 ppd in winter. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. The proposed permit also establishes daily maximum limits (the most that can be discharged on any single day). For BOD, the daily maximum limit is 9,000 ppd. William Evans, the Department employee with primary responsibility for the technical review of the proposed Department authorizations, said that setting the daily maximum limit at twice the monthly average was a standard practice of the Department. The maximum daily limits are not derived from the Livingston studies. Dr. Glen Daigger, a civil and environmental engineer, designed a model for the WWTP and determined the modifications necessary to enable the WWTP's discharge to meet all TBELs and WQBELs. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. 3. Discharge to the Wetland Tract IP proposes to relocate its discharge to the wetland tract as a means to end decades of failure by the mill to meet water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek. Discharging to the wetland tract, which flows to the marine waters of lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay, avoids many of the problems associated with trying to meet the more stringent water quality standards applicable in a freshwater stream. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands so that their full assimilative capacity is utilized. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay and lower Elevenmile Creek. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silviculture activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, a point designated D-003, it would be re-aerated6 and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged at D-003 would flow by gravity a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter, an expert in hydrology, soils, and forested wetlands, indicated that the effluent discharged at D-003 will move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be about one-half inch. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline and berm modifications in the wetland tract were permitted by the Department in 2003 through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. No person filed a petition to challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and is referred to as the No Significant Adverse Impact (NSAI) analysis. A year of "baseline data" on the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes was collected and submitted to the Department for use in developing the NSAI analysis, but was not made a part of the record in this case. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The Exemption for Experimental Use of Wetlands Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1) provides an exemption from water quality criteria for the experimental use of wetlands. The proposed Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order sets forth "interim limits" for pH, DO, color, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order also states that IP may petition for alternative water quality criteria pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 66D.300(1)(b)(c) and (d). The exemption is for 5 years beginning with the commencement of discharge into the wetland tract at D-003. The exemption it can be renewed by IP by application to the Department. The Waiver To qualify for the experimental use of wetlands exemption, Florida Administrative Code Rules 62- 660.300(1)(a)3 and 4 require, respectively, that the public be restricted from the exempted wetland area and that the waters not be used for recreation. IP proposes to prevent public access to the area of the wetland tract where the effluent distribution system is located. This is the freshwater area of the wetland tract and includes the four berms. However, IP does not want, nor believe it is necessary, to prevent public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes within the tidal marsh below berm 4. These lakes are accessible by boat from Perdido Bay and are used now by the public for boating and fishing. The Proposed Consent Order The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge form Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given 24 months to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At least 25 percent of the mill's effluent must be diverted to the wetland tract. At least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract when the new facilities begin operations. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to increase another 25 percent every three months thereafter so that three years after issuance of the permit 100 percent of the effluent is being discharged into the wetland tract and there is no longer a discharge at D-001 into Elevenmile Creek.7 The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limitations that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the 24-month construction period when the mill will continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12-month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply at D-003 when 100 percent of the discharge is into the wetland tract. They include the interim limits for specific conductance, pH, DO, color, and turbidity established through the experimental use of wetland exemption. The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit a report within six months with the results of the 2004 transparency study. The Department must be satisfied that the study shows the transparency standard will not be violated before the wetlands can be used for the discharge. This report has already been submitted to the Department, but the Department has not yet completed its review of the report. Nevertheless, it was admitted into the record as IP Exhibit 79. The proposed Consent Order provides that, in the event IP's does not receive treated sanitary wastewater from the planned ECUA facility, IP will notify the Department and submit an alternate compliance plan to the Department for the Department's approval. The submittal and approval of an alternate compliance plan would extend the time for compliance with water quality standards by another six months. The Department amended the proposed Consent Order at the conclusion of the hearing to provide for notice to the public and an opportunity for persons to object to the Department's action on any alternate compliance plan. The Consent Order requires a "Plan of Action" to determine "whether there remains a critical period for ortho-phosphate loading to lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay." The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit within 97 months (which would allow for five years of discharge to the wetland tract) a final report on whether there has been significant adverse impacts in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes resulting from the discharge of effluent pursuant to the interim limits for pH, DO, specific conductance, turbidity, and color. If the NSAI analysis shows no significant adverse impact has occurred, the proposed Consent Order contemplates that IP or the Department would establish alternative water quality criteria that would apply permanently in the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly progress reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. The Consent Order imposes a "stipulated penalty" of $500 per day for noncompliance with its terms. It also contains a statement that a violation of its terms may subject IP to civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. The Principal Factual Disputes A. The Evidence in General Much of the water quality and biological data presented by Petitioners were limited in terms of the numbers of samples taken, the extent of the area sampled, and the time period covered by the sampling. Much of the expert testimony presented by Petitioners was based on limited data, few field investigations, and the review of some, but not all relevant permit documents.8 On the other hand, the Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Even Dr. Lane called the Livingston studies "huge" and "amazing." Therefore, with regard to the factual issues raised by Petitioners that involved scientific subjects investigated in the Livingston studies, Petitioners' data and the expert opinions based on those data were generally of much less weight than the data and conclusions of the Livingston studies. However, the Livingston studies did not address all of the factual issues in dispute. Some of the evidence presented by Petitioners regarding historical water quality conditions in Perdido Bay and Elevenmile Creek was lay testimony. The lay testimony was competent and sufficient to prove the existence of environmental conditions that are detectable to the human senses, such as an offensive smell, a dark color, or a sticky texture. Historical Changes in Perdido Bay Petitioners claim that, before the Cantonment mill began operations in the 1940s, Perdido Bay was a rich and diverse ecosystem and a beautiful place for swimming, fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Petitioners blame the mill effluent for all the adverse changes they say have occurred in Perdido Bay. Petitioners claim that the water in Perdido Bay was much clearer before the mill was built. James Lane, who has lived on the Bay for 65 years, said he began to notice in the late 1940s that the water was becoming dark and filled with wood fibers. Mr. Lane recalls that there used to be an abundance of fish in the Perdido Bay, including croakers, pinfish, flounder, redfish, minnows, and catfish. Now Mr. Lane sees few of these fish in the Bay and he believes the remaining fish are unfit to eat because they look diseased to him. Mr. Lane said there were extensive areas of sea grasses in the Bay which supported large numbers of shrimp, crabs, and mussels, but these grasses are now gone. The Lane family used to enjoy swimming in Perdido Bay but stopped swimming years ago because the water felt sticky and often had a brown foam or scum on the surface. Mr. Lane and others members of FOPB claim to have gotten infections from swimming in the Bay. Mr. Lane and other witnesses described the odor of Elevenmile Creek near the mill as unpleasant and, at times, offensive. They consider the Creek to be too polluted for swimming. Donald Ray, who has been a Department biologist for 30 years, said he has received many complaints from citizens about the conditions in Perdido Bay. He said the foam that occurs in Perdido Bay is not natural foam, but one that persists and leaves a stain on boats. On the other hand, it is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the ecological problems of Perdido Bay are due primarily to the opening of Perdido Pass around 1900. The opening of the pass allowed Gulf waters to enter Perdido Bay and caused salinity stratification in the Bay, with marine waters on the bottom and fresh water from the Perdido River, Elevenmile Creek, and other tributaries on the top. The stratification occurs regularly in the lower Bay, but only during low flow conditions in most of the upper Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek. It restricts DO exchange between the upper and lower water layers and results in low DO levels in the lower layer. Low DO, or "hypoxia," is the primary cause of reduced biological diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston's initial study of the Perdido Bay system (1988-91) included an investigation of historical conditions, using documents and maps, anecdotal statements of area residents, as well as historic water quality and sediment data. Dr. Livingston found general agreement from most sources that: [P]rior to the 1940s, the various rivers and the bay in the Perdido Basin were quite different from what they are today. Eyewitness accounts from 1924 indicate a bay that was clear and "bluish" in color; the bottom could be seen at depths of five feet. According to resident' accounts, seagrasses grew from Garth Point to Witchwood; the grassbeds provided cover for many shrimp that were taken at the time. Flounder were taken with gigs and crabs were taken with hand nets. According to these accounts, the water from the various rivers and creeks in the area was relatively clear, and white sand/gravel bottoms were dominant forms of habitat in the freshwater and estuarine systems. The water was tea- colored but clear. Redfish, trout, blue crabs, shrimp, and mullet were abundant. * * * [T]hrough the early 1900s, the Elevenmile Creek was said to be crystal clear with soft white sand and good fishing. * * * According to various reports, in the early 1950s, the waters of Elevenmile Creek turned black, with concentrations of foam observed floating on the surface. By 1986, more than 28 million gallons of largely untreated effluent was flowing into the Elevenmile Creek- Perdido Bay system each day. Experiments by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission had shown that the creek waters were lethal. The Florida Board of Health reported that Elevenmile Creek was "grossly polluted" and that Perdido Bay had been "greatly degraded within the 1.5 mile radius of where Elevenmile Creek dumped into the bay." Nevertheless, Dr. Livingston discounted much of this historical record, especially with regard to the belief that the mill's effluent had adversely affected Perdido Bay, because it was not based on what he considers reliable scientific data. He found "little evidence in the long- term sediment record of a direct response to historical activities of the pulp and paper mill, suggesting that the flushing capacity of Perdido Bay quickly diluted effluents that enter Perdido Bay from Elevenmile Creek." The evidence is persuasive that the salinity stratification in Perdido Bay is a major cause of low DO in the Bay.9 However, the stratification does not explain all of the observed changes in water quality, biological productivity, and recreational values. The stratification does not account for the markedly better conditions in the Bay that existed before the Cantonment paper mill began operations. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. As recently as 2005, there were major toxic blooms of heterosigma in Tee and Wicker Lakes caused by increased nutrient loading from the mill. Other competent evidence showed that the mill's effluent has created nuisance conditions in the past, such as foam and scum, which adversely affected the recreational values of these public waters. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay, because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Petitioners were justified in feeling frustrated in having their concerns about the adverse impacts of the mill's effluent discounted for many years, and in having to wait so long for an effective regulatory response. However, with regard to many of their factual disputes, Petitioners' evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the dates of observations, the locations of observations, and in other respects, to distinguish the relative contribution of the mill effluent from other factors that contributed to the adverse impacts in the Bay, such as salinity stratification, natural nutrient loading from the Perdido River and other tributaries, and anthropogenic sources of pollution other than the paper mill.10 Petitioners generally referred to the mill effluent and its impacts to Perdido Bay as if they have been relatively constant for 65 years. The Livingston studies, however, showed clearly that the mill effluent and its impacts, as well as important factors affecting the impacts, such as drought, have frequently changed. Focusing on the fact that the average daily BOD loading allowed under the proposed permit would be same as under the 1989 TOP (4,500 ppd), Petitioners remarked several times at the final hearing that the proposed permit for the mill was no different than the existing permit. According to Petitioners, if the mill is allowed to operate under the proposed permit, one can predict that the future adverse impacts to Perdido Bay will be the same as the past adverse impacts. However, the 1989 TOP and the proposed permit are very different. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the impacts would be the same. Petitioners' evidence was generally insufficient to correlate past adverse impacts to Perdido Bay with the likely impacts that would occur under the proposed permit. In contrast, that was the focus of the Livingston studies. Development of the WQBELs Whether Perdido Bay is an Alluvial System and Whether Elevenmile Creek is a Blackwater Stream Alluvial systems are generally characterized by relatively high nutrient inputs from tributaries and associated wetlands that provide for high biological productivity in the receiving bay or estuary. Petitioners disagree with Dr. Livingston's characterization of the Perdido Bay system as an alluvial system. Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Ray, a Department biologist, who said that the Perdido River is not an alluvial river and the natural nutrient loadings to Perdido Bay are less than would occur in an alluvial system. Although it is curious that two experienced biologists cannot agree on whether Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system, the dispute is immaterial because it was not shown by Petitioners that any of the four proposed Department authorizations is dependent on the applicability of the term "alluvial." The WQBELs developed by Dr. Livingston, for example, were not dependent on a determination that Perdido Bay meets some definition of an alluvial system, but were based on what the data indicated about actual nutrient loadings into Perdido Bay and the Bay's ecological responses to the loadings. If the dispute is not immaterial, then Dr. Livingston's opinion that Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system is more persuasive, because he has greater experience and knowledge of the coastal bay systems on the Florida Panhandle than does Mr. Ray. Petitioners also take exception to Dr. Livingston's characterization of Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek. Petitioners claim Elevenmile Creek is naturally clear to "slightly tannic" stream. This dispute, however, is also immaterial because the proposed permit calls for the termination of the mill's discharge to Elevenmile Creek, including its contribution of color to the Creek. Petitioners assert that Dr. Livingston's characterizations of Perdido Bay as an alluvial system and Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek show he is biased and that his "overall analysis" lacks credibility. Dr. Livingston's opinions on these points do not show bias nor compromise the credibility of his overall analysis of the Perdido Bay system, which is actually the product of many scientists and based on 18 years of data.11 2. Selection of 1988 and 1989 Mill Loadings as a Benchmark for the WQBELs Generally, the Department establishes effluents limits for nutrients based on Chlorophyl A analysis. However, the Livingston studies showed that Chlorophyl A was not significantly associated with plankton blooms in Perdido Bay. Therefore, the Department accepted Dr. Livingston's recommendation to base the WQBELs for nutrients on the nutrient loading from the mill in 1988 and 1989, which the Livingston studies showed were good years for Perdido Bay with respect to its biological health. Phytoplankton are a fundamental component of the food web in Perdido Bay. The number of phytoplankton species is a sensitive indicator of the overall ecological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies showed that the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate from the mill had a direct effect on the number of phytoplankton species. In the years when the mill discharged high loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate, there were toxic algae blooms and reduced numbers of phytoplankton species. In 1988 and 1989, when the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate were lower, there were no toxic algae blooms, and there were relatively high numbers of phytoplankton species. Petitioners dispute that 1988 and 1989 are appropriate benchmarks years for developing the WQBELs because Petitioners claim there were high nutrient loadings and algae blooms in those years. Mr. Ray testified that the Department received citizen complaints about algae blooms in those years. Dr. Livingston's analysis was more persuasive, however, because it distinguished types of algae blooms according to their harmful effect on the food web and was based on considerably more water quality and biological data. Petitioners also presented water quality data collected from 1971 to 1994 by the Bream Fishermen Association at one sampling station in the northeastern part of Perdido Bay, which indicate that in 1988 and 1989, the concentrations of nutrients were sometimes high. The proposed nutrient WQBELs were derived from data about the actual response of the Perdido Bay ecosystem over time to various inputs. The sampling data from the Bream Fishermen Association were not correlated to ecosystem response and, therefore, are insufficient to refute Dr. Livingston's evidence that 1988 and 1989 were years of relatively high diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Furthermore, nutrients loadings would be reduced under the proposed permit. 3. DO and Sediment Oxygen Demand The parties agreed that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is a major reason for the low DO in Perdido Bay in areas where there is salinity stratification. SOD is caused by the bacterial degradation of particulate organic matter that settles to the bottom. SOD decreases DO in the lower water layer, but also can cause a reduction of DO in the surface layer. Low DO has substantially reduced the biological productivity of Perdido Bay. Thomas Gallagher, an environmental engineer and water quality modeling expert, showed that even without the mill discharge, DO in the bottom waters of Perdido Bay would fall below the applicable Class III water quality standard of 5 mg/l. Low DO conditions are now a "natural" characteristic of the Bay, usually occurring during summer and early fall when freshwater flows are low and temperatures are high. At these times, surface water DO levels are usually above the state standard, but DO in the bottom waters usually range between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l. Petitioners claim that the dominant source of the sediment in Perdido Bay is the carbon and nutrient loading in the mill's effluent that flows into the Bay from Elevenmile Creek. Mr. Ray, who sampled sediments in Perdido Bay over several years for the Department, believes that the mill effluent is the main source of the sediment and, consequently, the sediment oxygen demand. Dr. Livingston did extensive sediment analyses in Perdido Bay. He compared the data with sediment data from other bays on the Florida Panhandle. It is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the mill effluent contributes little to the sediments or SOD in Perdidio Bay. His initial three-year study concluded: [T]he hypoxic conditions of Elevenmile Creek are due, in part, to mill discharges. However, low dissolved oxygen conditions at depth in Perdido Bay are not due to the release of mill effluents from Elevenmile Creek, and can actually be attributed to a long history of human activities that include alteration of the hydrological interactions at the gulfward end of the estuary. The entry of saline water from the Gulf and the resulting stratification have been coupled with various forms of human development that release carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds into the estuary. The landward movement of high-salinity water from the Gulf of Mexico, laden with various types of oxygen-consuming compounds from various sources, together with oxygen demand from sediments to the lower water column that is isolated from reaeration due to salinity stratification, are thus responsible for a large portion of the observed hypoxic conditions at depth in Perdido Bay. [The paper mill] is responsible for a relatively small amount of these oxygen-consuming effects. In East Bay, which is a part of Escambia Bay and a relatively pristine system, there was SOD that caused DO to fall below standards in the lower water layer. Dr. Livingston also found severe oxygen deprivation at times in the lower waters of the Styx River and Perdido River, which do not receive mill effluent. Dr. Livingston believes the low DO that occasionally occurs in these rivers is due to agricultural runoff, urban discharges, and natural organic loading from adjacent wetlands. There was extensive evidence, some of which was presented by Petitioners, showing that the mill loadings of carbon and nutrients are less than the loadings from the Perdido River. Mr. Gallagher concluded that the sediment in the Bay is mostly "terrestrial carbon," and not from the mill's effluent. His water quality modeling work determined that the mill's effluent reduced bottom layer DO by about 0.1 mg/l. Dr. Lane believes that the organic solids in the mill's effluent are accumulating in Perdido Bay sediments, but Mr. Gallagher pointed out that degrading solids cannot accumulate because they are degrading. In addition, Mr. Gallagher said that logic dictates that solids that have not settled out after spending several days in the settling basins of IP's WWTP are not going to readily settle in the more turbulent environment of Perdido Bay. Some of the solids are oxidizing or being transported into the Gulf. Mr. Gallagher determined that in summer and late fall, 60 percent of the water in the bottom layer in the upper Bay is from the Gulf and almost all the rest is from the Perdido River. He believes only 0.1 to 2.0 percent of the water in the bottom layer is mill effluent. Dr. Livingston responded to the BOD and carbon issues that "these Petitioners raised over the years" by investigating them as part of the Livingston studies. He found no relationship between loading and DO. Dr. Livingston concluded that the mill was not having much effect on SOD. Dr. Livingston and Mr. Gallagher referred to a carbon isotope study of the sediment in Perdido Bay by Coffin and Cifuentes. The isotope study was a part of the initial three-year Livingston study entitled "Ecological Study of the Perdido Bay Drainage System." The study identified a unique carbon isotope in the mill's effluent and looked for traces of the isotope in the sediments of Perdido Bay. Very little of the carbon isotope was found in the sediments, suggesting that the mill's effluent was not contributing much to the sediments. The carbon isotope study was not offered into evidence. Petitioners assert that the isotope study is hearsay and cannot be used to support a finding of fact.12 However, Dr. Livingston's opinion about the sources of the sediment was not based solely on the isotope study. The isotope study was consistent with his other studies and with Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling analysis. Therefore, the conclusions of the isotope study serve to support and explain Dr. Livingston's expert opinion that the mill effluent is not the primary source of the sediment and low DO in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston summarized his opinion regarding DO and SOD as follows: "all of these lines of evidence, from all the bays that I have worked in and from them scientific literature and from our own studies, every line of evidence simply eliminated the pulp mill as the primary source of the low dissolved oxygen in the bay." 4. Long-term BOD BOD is a measurement of the oxygen demand exerted by the oxidation of carbon, nitrogen, and the respiration of algae. A five-day BOD analysis is the standard test used in the regulatory process. The use of the standard five-day BOD measurement is not restricted to organic material that is expected to completely degrade in five days. Five days is simply the time period selected to standardize the measurement. For example, the five-day BOD analysis is used in the regulation of domestic wastewater even though most of the organic material in domestic wastewater takes about 60 days to degrade and would exert an oxygen demand throughout the 60 days. It was undisputed that paper mill effluent will continue to consume DO after five days. One estimate given was that it would take 100 days to completely degrade. Some of the naturally occurring organic material flowing into Perdido Bay from the Perdido River and Gulf of Mexico would also include material with long-term BOD. Petitioners claim that long-term BOD analysis is essential to determine the true impacts of the mill's effluent on Perdido Bay, but they failed to show that the Livingston studies did not consider long-term BOD.13 The evidence shows that Dr. Livingston's studies accounted for DO demand in all its forms and for any duration. Dr. Livingston's studies focused on the response of Perdido Bay's food web to nutrients and various other inputs as they changed over time. If long-term BOD was having an adverse effect on the food web, the Livingston studies were designed to detect that effect. Dr. Livingston's opinion is that long-term BOD is not a significant problem for Perdido Bay because the Bay is part of a dynamic system and the sediments are regularly flushed out or otherwise recycled in a matter of a few months, not years.14 5. Carbon Dr. Lane, who is a marine biologist, believes a major reason for low DO in Perdido Bay is "organic carbonaceous BOD." However, Dr. Lane presented no evidence other than statements of the theoretical process by which carbon from the mill would cause low DO in the Bay. She presented no scientific data from Perdido Bay to prove her theory.14 Dr. Livingston said that 16 years of studies in the Bay have found DO and carbon to be "totally uncorrelated." Other Water Quality Issues 1. Toxicity Petitioners allege that the mill effluent has had occasional problems passing toxicity tests. Un-ionized ammonia is the likely cause, and the reduction of un-ionized ammonia in the proposed permit and the distribution of the effluent over the wetland tract should prevent toxicity problems from recurring. Dr. Livingston examined tissue samples from various fish and invertebrates and found low levels of bioconcentrating chlorine compounds in Perdido Bay that he believes were "probably associated with discharges from the Pensacola mill." Although they are toxic substances, Dr. Livingston found no diseased organisms and no evidence of food web magnification of these potentially bioaccumulable compounds. Mr. Ray testified that Perdido Bay was the worst of all the bays he has studied in terms of high sediment metals. Most of his sediment sampling was done in 1977 through 1983, years before the Livingston studies got started. His knowledge about subsequent years was based on only two samples, one in 1988 and another in 2005.16 Dr. Lane did an analysis of 12 sediment samples in Perdido Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek in 1999 and concluded that "Eleven Mile Creek appears to be the source of all elevated levels [of metals] except silver." The Livingston studies included toxics analysis of Perdido Bay sediments, including metals, dioxin, and other chlorinated organic compounds. Dr. Livingston testified that metal concentrations in the sediments of Elevenmile Creek did not differ from the metal concentrations in the Perdido River and other streams in the area. The concentrations were not significantly different from concentrations in other bays he has studied that do not have a paper mill discharge. 2. Mutagenic Compounds Petitioners claim that there are chemicals in paper mill effluent that are mutagenic and are causing changes in the sex of fish. They introduced an exhibit from the Department's exhibit list (DEP Exhibit 38) that discussed investigations of effluent from the Cantonment mill and other Florida paper mills which found abnormally high testosterone levels and related mutations in female Gambusia fish. The most recent such study16 implicates androgens produced by the microbial degradation of natural chemicals in the trees pulped at the mills, especially softwood trees (pines), as the cause. Petitioners believe IP's proposal to begin using 100 percent pine at the Cantonment mill could cause mutations in fish and other animals exposed to the mill's effluent. Although IP and the Department are aware of the sex change studies, there was no evidence presented that the subject was investigated or addressed by them in the permitting process. DEP Exhibit 38 is hearsay and no non-hearsay evidence was presented on the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent. Therefore, no finding of fact in this Recommended Order can be based on the data and analysis in DEP Exhibit 38.18 Furthermore, Petitioners did not raise the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent discharge in their petitions for hearing or in the pre-hearing stipulation.19 Antidegradation Policy Petitioners claimed the proposed permit violated the antidegradation policy for surface waters established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(1). An element of that policy is to require, for any discharge that degrades water quality, a demonstration that the degradation is necessary or desirable under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(1)(a) contains a list of factors to be considered and balanced in applying the antidegradation policy. These include consideration of whether the proposed project would be beneficial to public health, safety, or welfare and whether the discharge would adversely affect the, conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreational values. The greater weight of the evidence supports the position of IP and the Department that the proposed discharge to the wetland tract would be an improvement over the existing circumstances. However, as discussed below, there was an insufficient demonstration that the discharge would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community within the wetland tract, and there was an insufficient demonstration that the Perdido River OFW would not be significantly degraded. Without sufficient demonstrations on these points, it is impossible to find that the degradation has been minimized. Petitioners did not prove that the proposed project was not in the public interest, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because IP did not make a sufficient demonstration regarding potential adverse impacts on the biological community within the wetland tract and on the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to prove compliance with Florida's antidegradation policy. Perdido River OFW Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(2) contains the standards applicable to OFWs and prohibits a discharge that significantly degrades an OFW unless the proposed discharge is clearly in the public interest or the existing ambient water quality of the OFW would not be lowered.20 Petitioners contend that the water quality of the Perdido River would be significantly degraded by the mill's effluent under the authorizations. Mr. Gallagher's modeling analysis predicted improved water quality in the Perdido River for DO and several other criteria over the conditions that existed in 1979, the year the river was designated as an OFW. However, the modeling also predicted that the discharge would reduce the DO in the river (as it existed in 1979) by .01 mg/l under unusual conditions of effluent loading at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during a drought. Mr. Gallagher's modeling indicated that a very small (less than 0.1 mg/l) reduction in DO in the surface water of the lower Perdido River would occur as a result of the proposed project. He considered that to be an "insignificant" effect and it was within the model's range of error. However, IP made the wrong comparisons in its modeling analysis to determine compliance with the OFW rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2). Mr. Gallagher used the model to compare the DO levels in the Perdido River that would result from the mill's discharge of BOD at the proposed permit limit of 4,500 ppd with the predicted DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis was discharging 5,100 ppd of BOD. IP should have compared the DO levels resulting from the proposed permit with the actual DO levels in 1979, or at least the DO levels that the model would have simulated using actual BOD loadings by St. Regis in 1979. The DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis had discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD are irrelevant. No DO data from 1979 were presented at the hearing and no explanation was given for why DO data for 1979 were not used in the analysis. No evidence was presented that St. Regis discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD as a monthly average in 1979.21 It might have discharged substantially less.22 Petitioners did not prove that the proposed permit would significantly degrade the Perdido River, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because the wrong anti-degradation comparison was made, IP failed to provide reasonable assurance that the Perdido River would not be significantly degraded by the proposed discharge. The Experimental Use of Wetlands Exemption Petitioners claim that IP did not demonstrate compliance with all the criteria for the experimental use of wetlands exemption. There are seven criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a) that must be met to qualify for the exemption. IP is seeking a waiver from two of the criteria and those will be discussed later in this Recommended Order. Impact on the Biological Community a. In General Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)1 requires a demonstration that "the wetlands ecosystem may reasonably be expected to assimilate the waste discharge without significant adverse impact on the biological community within the receiving waters." Dr. Nutter used a "STELLA" wetland model to predict the effects of discharging mill effluent to the wetland tract. The STELLA model was programmed to evaluate the "water budget" for the wetland tract, as well as simulate the fate of nitrogen, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Petitioners contend that the STELLA model is too limited to adequately assess potential adverse impacts on the biological community, but the model was not the sole basis upon which Dr. Nutter formed his opinions. He also relied on relevant scientific literature, his general knowledge of wetland processes, and on his 40 years of experience in land treatment of wastewater. The STELLA model predicted that there would be about a 10 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus. Dr. Nutter testified that that figure was a conservative prediction and the scientific literature suggests there could be a greater reduction. Wetlands are effective in processing TSS and BOD. Dr. Nutter ran the model with the proposed permit limits and the model predicted 90 to 95 percent BOD removal before the effluent reached berm 4. Dr. Nutter expected pH levels to be in the range of background levels in the wetlands, which vary between 6.5 and 8.0.23 Dr. Nutter predicts that in high flow conditions, there will be more DO in the water flowing from the wetlands into Tee and Wicker Lakes. During low flow conditions, he predicts no change in the DO level. Background DO levels in the wetland tract now range between and 5.0 mg/l. Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling for Perdido Bay assumed that the water flowing from the wetland tract would have a DO level of 2.0 mg/l, which Dr. Nutter believes this is a conservative estimate, meaning it could be higher. Specific Conductance A fundamental premise of the relocated discharge is that it solves the mill's decades-long failure to meet the stricter water quality standards applicable in the fresh waters of Elevenmile Creek because the new receiving waters would be marine waters. However, the majority (about 70 percent) of the wetland tract is a freshwater wetland. The tidal influence does not reach above berm 4 in the wetland tract. Before the mill's effluent reaches marine waters, it would be distributed over the entire freshwater portion of the wetland tract. Dr. Livingston explained that, but for the mill's discharge, minnows and other small "primary" freshwater fish species would be found in Elevenmile Creek. The primary fish cannot tolerate the mill's discharge because the high levels of sodium chloride and sulfide (specific conductance) cause osmoregulatory problems, disrupting their blood metabolism and ion regulation. High conductivity also eliminates sensitive microinvertebrates. Because Tee and Wicker Lakes are in the tidally influenced, southern portion of the wetland tract, the fish and other organisms in the lakes are polyhaline, which means they are adapted to rapid changes in salinity, temperature and other habitat features. That is not true of the organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract. A constructed wetlands pilot project was built in 1990 at the Cantonment mill. The initial operational phase of the pilot project was July 1991 through June 1993. A second phase was conducted for just three months, from September 1997 through December 1997. The pilot project generated some information about "benthic macroinvertebrate diversity," which was "low to moderate." In addition, there were "observations" made of "three amphibian species, three reptile species, approximately 31 bird species, three fish species that were introduced, and two mammal species." The information generated by the pilot project is ambiguous with respect to the effect of the effluent on fish and other organisms attributable to the specific conductance of the effluent, indicating both successes and failures in terms of survival rates. Moreover, the data presented from the pilot wetland project lacks sufficient detail, both with respect to the specific conductivity of the effluent applied to the wetlands and with respect to the response of salt-intolerant organisms to the specific conductivity of the effluent, to correlate the findings of the pilot project with the proposed discharge to the wetland tract. Freshwater wetlands do not have naturally high levels of specific conductance. The specific conductance in the wetland tract is 100 micromhos/cm or less.24 The proposed interim limit for specific conductance for the discharge into the wetland tract is "2,500 micromhos/cm or 50% above background, whichever is greater." Using total dissolved solids (TDS) as a surrogate for analyzing the effects on specific conductance, Dr. Nutter predicted that average TDS effluent concentrations would only be reduced by 1.0 percent.25 His prediction is consistent with the literature on the use of wetlands for wastewater treatment, which indicates wetlands are not effective in reducing TDS and specific conductance. The wetland tract would not assimilate TDS in mill's effluent. The potential exists, therefore, for the discharge to cause specific conductance in the freshwater area of the wetland tract to reach levels that are too high for fish and other organisms which can only live, thrive, and reproduce in waters of lower specific conductance. It was the opinion of Barry Sulkin, an environmental scientist, that the "freshwater community" would be adversely impacted by the salts in the effluent. Although the freshwater area of the wetland tract is not dominated by open water ponds, creeks, and streams,26 the evidence shows that it contains sloughs, creeks, and other surface water flow. No evidence was presented about the biological community associated with the sloughs, creeks, and other waters in the wetland tract, other than general statements about the existing plants and the trees that are being planted. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because IP did not adequately address the impact of increased specific conductance levels on fish and other organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would be assimilated so as not to cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. Tee and Wicker Lakes When the Department issued the proposed exemption order, it did not have sufficient data and analyses regarding Tee and Wicker Lakes to determine with reasonable confidence that these waterbodies would not be adversely impacted by the proposed discharge. A transparency study of the lakes, which IP introduced as an exhibit at the final hearing, had not previously been reviewed by Department staff. Dr. Livingston is still developing data and analyses for the lakes to use in the NSAI analysis. The proposed NSAI monitoring plan states that one of its objectives is to determine the "ecological state" of the tidal ponds, including whether the ponds "could comprise an important nursery area for estuarine populations." In addition, the monitoring is to determine "the normal distributions of salinity, temperature, color, and dissolved oxygen" in the tidal ponds. These are data that must be known before a determination is possible that the discharge would not have a significant adverse impact on the biological community associated with the lakes. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of Tee and Wicker Lakes, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because insufficient data exists regarding baseline conditions in Tee and Wicker Lakes, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would not cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. 2. Public Interest and Public Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)2. requires the applicant to demonstrate that "granting the exemption is in the public interest and will not adversely affect public health or the cost of public health or other related programs." Public Interest Petitioners made much of a statement by Mr. Evans that the public interest consideration in this permit review was “IP’s interest”. Petitioners claimed that this statement was an admission by the Department that it gave no consideration to the public interest. However, in context, Mr. Evan's statement was not such an admission. Moreover, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) expressly provides that the public interest is not confined to activities conducted solely for public benefits, but can also include private activities conducted for private purposes. The proposed exemption order does not directly address the public interest criterion, but it notes that "existing impacted wetlands will be restored." In IP's application for the exemption, it states that the exemption would "contribute to our knowledge of wetlands in general and to the refinement of performance guidelines for the application of pulp mill wastewater to wetlands." Petitioners dispute that the wetland tract is being restored. The evidence shows that some restoration would be accomplished. The natural features and hydrology of the tract have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing for pasture, ditching, and draining. The volume of flow in the discharge would offset the artificial drainage that occurred. A mixture of hardwood tree species would be planted, which would restore more of the diversity found in a natural forested wetland. However, an aspect of the project that could substantially detract from the goal of restoration is the transformation of the freshwater wetlands to an unnatural salty condition. Dr. Nutter said that the salt content of the mill's effluent was equivalent to Gatorade, but for many freshwater organisms, that is too salty. Another public benefit of the exemption that was discussed at the final hearing is that it would allow IP to relocate its discharge from Elevenmile Creek and thus end its adverse impacts to the Creek. That public benefit is not given much weight because IP has not shown that its adverse impacts to Elevenmile Creek cannot be eliminated or substantially reduced by decreasing its production of paper products. The evidence shows only that IP has attempted to solve its pollution problems through environmental engineering.27 A sufficient public interest showing for the purpose of obtaining the experimental use of wetlands exemption should not be a rigorous challenge if all the other exemption criteria are met, because that means the proposed wetland discharge was shown to have no harmful consequences. The public interest showing in this proceeding was insufficient, however, because the other exemption criteria were not met and there is a reasonable potential for harmful consequences. Public Health Petitioners raised the issue of the presence of Klebsiella bacteria, which can be a public health problem when they occur at high levels. The more detection of Klebsiella, however, does not constitute a public health concern. Petitioners did not show that Klebsiella bacteria exist in the mill's effluent at levels that exceed applicable water quality standards. Petitioners also did not present competent evidence about the likely fate of Klebsiella bacteria in the proposed effluent distribution system. Dr. Lane's statement that Klebsiella bacteria might be a problem is not sufficient to rebut IP's prima facie showing that the proposed permit will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards applicable to pathogenic bacteria. Petitioners also point to past incidents of high total coliform concentrations in Elevenmile Creek in support of their contention that the proposed exemption poses a risk to public health. However, these past incidents in Elevenmile Creek are not sufficient to prove that fecal coliform in the effluent discharged to the wetland tract will endanger the public health. IP proposes to restrict access to the wetland distribution system. Furthermore, the fate of bacteria in the wetlands is much different than in the Creek. The more persuasive evidence is that the wetland tract would destroy the bacteria by solar radiation and other mechanisms so that bacteria concentrations in waters accessible by the public would not be at levels which pose a threat to public health. Protection of Potable Water Supplies and Human Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)5. requires the applicant for the exemption to demonstrate that "the presently specified criteria are unnecessary" to protect potable water supplies and human health, which presupposes that the applicant has applied for an exemption from water quality criteria applicable to human health. IP has not requested such an exemption and, therefore, this particular criterion appears to be inapplicable. Even if it were applicable, the evidence does not show that the effluent would cause a problem for potable water supplies or human health. 4. Contiguous Waters Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "the exemption will not interfere with the designated uses of contiguous waters." Contiguous waters, for the purpose of this criterion, would be Elevenmile Creek, Perdido Bay, and the Perdido River. Petitioners argue that Tee and Wicker Lakes should be considered contiguous waters for the purpose of this criterion of the exemption rule. However, Tee and Wicker Lakes are within the exempted wetland tract so they are not contiguous waters. Petitioners contend that IP failed to account for the buildup of detritus in the wetlands and its eventual export to Perdido Bay. Their contention is based primarily on the opinion of Dr. Kevin White, a civil engineer, that treatment wetlands must be scraped or burned to remove plant buildup. However, Dr. Nutter explained that periodic removal of plant material is needed for the relatively small "constructed wetland" treatment systems that Dr. White is familiar with, but should not be needed in the 1,464-acre wetland tract. Nevertheless, because IP did not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed permit and related authorizations would not significantly degrade the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to meet this particular exemption criterion regarding interference with contiguous waters. 5. Scientifically Valid Experimental Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "scientifically valid environmental controls are provided . . . to monitor the long-term effects and recycling efficiency." Petitioners' argument about this particular criterion was largely misplaced. The term "environmental controls" modifies the term "monitor" and connotes only that the experiment would be monitored in a manner that will generate reliable information about long-term effects and performance. For monitoring purposes, IP's proposed NSAI protocol is an innovative and comprehensive plan that complies with this exemption criterion. Petitioners' objections to the lack of sufficient information about Tee and Wicker Lakes is more appropriately an attack on the sufficiency of IP's showing that its discharge would not cause a significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. That issue was discussed above. 6. Duration of the Exemption Petitioners argue that the exemption can not exceed five years in duration, but the time schedules established by the proposed Consent Order and proposed permit would allow the exemption to be in effect for nine years. The Department's exemption order states that the five years does not begin to run until IP begins to discharge effluent at D-003 into the wetland tract. The possibility that IP might seek to renew the exemption after five years does not make the exemption something other than a five-year exemption. The Department's action on the request to renew the exemption would be subject to public review and challenge by persons whose substantial interests are affected. The Waiver The proposed waiver order would excuse IP from compliance with the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a)3. and 4., which require that public access and recreation be restricted in the area covered by the exemption for experimental use of wetlands. Without the waiver, the public would have to be excluded from Tee and Wicker Lakes. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, requires a showing by the person seeking the waiver that the purpose of the underlying statute will be achieved by other means and the application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. Petitioners contend that IP failed to demonstrate substantial hardship. However, Petitioners do not want public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes restricted. The sole reason for their objection to the proposed waiver is apparently to thwart the issuance of the exemption. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, defines "substantial hardship" as a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the waiver. In the proposed waiver order, the Department identifies IP's hardship as the possibility that denial of the waiver could result in denial of IP's NPDES permit and closure of the mill. The proposed waiver order then describes the number of jobs and other economic benefits of the mill that would be lost if the mill were closed. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the Department's interpretation of Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to accept a demonstration of hardship that is associated with denial of the waiver is mistaken. The statute requires that the hardship arise from the application of the rule. In this case, IP must demonstrate that it would suffer substantial hardship if it were required to restrict public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes. Petitioners claimed that IP has no authority to restrict the public from gaining access to Tee and Wicker Lakes because those are public waterbodies which the public has a right to enter and use. A substantial legal hardship for IP in complying with the exemption rule, therefore, is that compliance is impossible. The Consent Order 1. Compliance Schedule Subsections 403.088(2)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes, provide that no permit shall be issued unless a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation of an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system is in place. Petitioners claim the time schedules for compliance are not reasonable. Petitioners presented no competent evidence, however, that the WWTP upgrades, pipeline construction, and other activities required by the proposed permit can be accomplished in a shorter period of time. One recurring theme in the Petitioners' case was that the adverse impacts associated with the continued discharge to Elevenmile Creek should not be allowed to continue, even for an interim period associated with construction of the WWTP upgrades and effluent pipeline. However, Petitioners also advocated the relocation of the discharge to the Escambia River, or to a "constructed wetlands." Both of these alternatives would have required a transition period during which the discharge to Elevenmile Creek would likely have continued. Furthermore, the Consent Order imposes interim limits on the discharge to Elevenmile Creek that would apply immediately upon issuance of the proposed permit. Although altered by the mill's effluent discharge, Elevenmile Creek is now a relatively stable biological system. The proposed permit would effectuate some improvement in the creek and Perdido Bay even during the construction phase. 2. Contingency Plan The proposed Consent Order includes a contingency plan in the event that the NSAI monitoring analysis shows adverse impacts to the biological community within the wetland tract. The plan provides for alternative responses including relocating all or part of the wetland discharge to Elevenmile Creek. Petitioners object to the plan, primarily because they contend it is vague. The provisions in the contingency plan for relocating all or part of the discharge from the wetland tract to Elevenmile Creek, appear to reflect a presumption that the negatives associated with continued discharge to the wetlands would outweigh the negatives associated with returning the discharge to Elevenmile Creek. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where the harm to the biological community of the wetland tract is small in relationship to the harm to the biological community that might have reestablished itself in Elevenmile Creek. Because the selection of an alternative under the contingency plan requires the consideration of data and analyses associated with future events, it is impossible to know at this time whether future action taken by the Department and IP pursuant to the contingency plan would be reasonable. If the contingency plan is intended by the Department and IP to authorize future action when circumstances described in the plan are present, then the plan is too vague. On the other hand, there is adequate detail in the plan if the purpose of the plan is merely to establish a framework for future decision-making that would be subject to permit modification, public review and challenge. Clarification is needed. 2. Penalties Petitioners complained that the stipulated of $500 per day for violations of the proposed Consent Order is too small to provide a deterrent to a company of the size of IP. Petitioners are correct, but did not present evidence to show what size penalty would be appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Denying proposed revised NPDES Permit Number FL0002526- 001/001-IW1S; Disapproving revised Consent Order Number 04-1202; Denying IP's petition for authorization for the experimental use of wetlands; and Denying IP's petition for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
Findings Of Fact On or about April 5, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for a variance to replace an existing four foot fence extending to the seawall on his property at 643 Harbor Island, Lot 12 Island Estates, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned RS-6. Petitioner had already replaced his previous fencing prior to the filing of this application with wooden fencing which extends on the north and south side of his property through the setback to the seawall. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered Petitioner's application at its meeting on May 12, 1988, and based upon the Petitioner's explanation that the variance was sought simply to replace an existing fence that had termite damage, the Board approved his application on a 3 to 2 vote. The variance approval was conditioned upon the Petitioner obtaining a building permit within one month of the approval. Petitioner failed to obtain the required building permit, and no excuse was offered for this failure. Therefore, he had to reapply for the variance. On or about July 21, 1988, Petitioner filed his variance reapplication. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered this reapplication on August 25, 1988, at which time Petitioner again stated that he was simply replacing an existing fence. Due to a tie vote, consideration of the reapplication was continued to the Board's meeting of September 8, 1988. At the meeting on September 8, he explained for the first time that while the fencing on the south side of his property was simply the replacement of a previous fence which had extended to the seawall, the fencing on the north side was not. The previous fence on the north side of his property had stopped prior to the fifteen foot setback. With this clarification, the Board approved his variance reapplication for the south side of his property, but denied the variance for the north side. Petitioner has timely appealed the denial of his variance reapplication as it relates to the north side of his property. Petitioner testified at hearing that prior to the construction of his current wooden fence, he had a wood fence all the way to the seawall on the south side of his property. Since he had to replace that fencing due to termite damage, he took the opportunity to also replace and extend the wooden fencing on the northern side of his property through the setback. This action was not based on any hardship, but simply because he and his family felt it would look better if he had the same fencing on both sides of his property. It is clear and undisputed that Petitioner constructed a new fence on the north side of his property through the setback without obtaining a variance or permit. He did this simply for aesthetic reasons, and not due to any hardship. He failed to disclose this in his applications, or when the Board met on May 12 and August 25, 1988 to consider this matter.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Ben A. Leasure, should have a $3,000.00 administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly illegally filling 0.17 acres of wetlands contiguous with the Withlacoochee River (River), a Class III water, on land located in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner of an approximate 5-acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Olivet Drive and State Road 50 (5345 Olivet Drive) in unincorporated Hernando County, Florida. The property is also known as Parcel Identification Number R09-123-21-1110-00J0-0010. In broader geographic terms, the property lies just east of Interstate 75, west of U.S. Highway 301, and just west-southwest of Ridge Manor, a small community in Hernando County. The western boundary of the parcel is approximately 500 feet east of the River, a Class III Outstanding Florida Waterbody (OWF), which meanders through the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)41. In November 1971, Respondent purchased his property and on a later undisclosed date built a residence. According to Department Exhibit 24, which is a letter authored by Respondent in 1987, he first began filling the floodplain on the western part of his land "probably" in 1971, or just after he purchased the property. Historical aerial photographs of the site indicate that sometime before 1984, he constructed a pond just north of his house, apparently to be used for fishing, and by 1992 he had constructed a second, smaller pond just south of the larger pond. On February 3, 1986, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sent Respondent a Cease and Desist Order in the form of a letter in which it advised Respondent that he had placed a "considerable amount of fill material" in wetlands adjacent to the River; that such filling was in violation of the federal Clean Water Act of 1977; that legal action would be taken if further filling occurred; that he must reply within 15 days indicating that he had complied with the terms of the letter; and that within the same timeframe he must provide information concerning the public and/or private need for the work, the effects on the surrounding area, and any other relevant information. By letter dated March 12, 1986, Respondent responded to the Cease and Desist Order and stated that prior to 1977 the land had been changed from wetlands to usable farmland, that his land did not connect to the River, and that there were no natural waters on his property that connected to state or federal waters. A follow-up letter was sent by the Corps on February 26, 1987, in which the Corps advised Respondent that he could resolve the violation "by removing all unauthorized fill material" and restoring the area. He was also told that in lieu of doing this, he could file an application for an after- the-fact permit authorizing the filling. A copy of a Joint Application for Permit was attached to the letter. On March 7, 1987, Respondent replied to the Corps' letter and stated that his land did not connect with any other waterbody; that he had been filling his property since 1971 without objection by anyone; that he had a "hard time understanding all these rules and regulations"; and that he questioned why the Corps was causing him "so much trouble for the last couple of years." Respondent never filed an application for an after-the-fact permit nor did he receive a reply to his letter. After an "Unauthorized Wetland Alteration Field Investigation" was conducted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) sometime in 1992, by letter dated November 3, 1992, the District advised Respondent that it appeared the "wetland in question was disturbed prior to October, 1984" and that any filling done before that date was exempt from its jurisdiction; that it appeared that other dredge/fill work had been performed on the same wetland since that date; that Respondent's claim that the area was being used for agricultural purposes was not supported by any evidence; that Respondent's activities constituted a violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes; and that all illegal activity must be ceased immediately. The disposition of further contacts between the District and Respondent, if any, are unknown. Against this backdrop, on August 16, 2002, the Department's Tampa District Office received a complaint from the District stating that Respondent had illegally filled wetlands on his property. (The record does not show why the District waited almost ten years to refer the complaint to the Department.) In response to that complaint, and as a precursor to issuing a formal notice of violation, on August 20, 2002, the Tampa district office sent Respondent a warning letter indicating that a violation "may exist on [his] property" and requesting that he contact the Department to arrange a meeting "to discuss this matter." By mutual agreement, an inspection of the property was scheduled for September 5, 2002. Because a Department representative became unavailable just before the inspection, the Department did not appear at the property on the scheduled date or notify Respondent that the inspection had been cancelled. The following day, September 6, 2002, Department personnel were in the area and appeared unannounced at Respondent's property. However, no one was home and they did not inspect the property. Several weeks later, Department personnel again visited the site but could not gain access. Because Respondent was unwilling to grant access to his property, on April 17, 2003, the Department obtained an inspection warrant from the Circuit Court in Hernando County authorizing an inspection of Respondent's property. On April 22, 2003, seven Department employees inspected the property. Based upon plant species and hydrological indicators found on the property, it was established that the northwestern corner of Respondent's property lay within the surface water floodplain of the River and constituted wetlands, as defined by Section 373.019(22), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.200(19). (The Department also established that there is a fifty percent chance of the filled area being flooded during any given year.) Therefore, any filling on that portion of Respondent's property would require a permit. Department records reflected that Respondent had never obtained a permit authorizing any work. During their inspection, Department representatives observed that a narrow strip of land totaling around 0.20 acres in the northwest corner of the parcel (just west of the larger fish pond) had been filled with concrete debris and sand to a height of around 6 or 7 feet in an effort to sever the connection between the River and the wetlands.5 Unless the berm is removed, the activity could lead to adverse cumulative impacts, including a loss in available habitat for floral and fauna that currently use the area, a loss in water storage capacity of the current system, and a loss in detritus formation and nutrient/pollution cycling. An Enforcement Inspection Report prepared after the inspection recommended that an enforcement action be initiated. On June 10, 2004, the Department issued its Notice alleging that Respondent had violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.050, which requires a permit to fill wetlands or surface waters, and Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to violate a Department rule. On August 12, 2004, Respondent filed his Petition challenging the Notice. In his Petition, Respondent denied that he owned the property on which the filling occurred; alleged that the property had been previously inspected in 1986 by the Corps; alleged that the District confirmed by letter in 1992 that the filling had occurred prior to 1984 and was therefore exempt from regulation; and alleged that he is entitled to "restitution" for damages caused by the Wysong Dam being rebuilt downstream from his property. At hearing, Respondent also suggested that the filled area was not wetlands. This proceeding followed. On November 17, 2004, the Department conducted a second inspection of Respondent's property. The objectives of that inspection were to determine the boundary of the filled area by Global Position Satellite equipment and to allow Eric D. Hickman, the new Environmental Manager who was not present during the first inspection, to perform a review of the property. Through ground reconnaissance and photo- interpretation, Mr. Hickman was able to establish the landward extent of the wetlands and other surface waters of the State. Based on vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators found on the site, he was able to confirm that the filled area on Respondent's property is wetlands. In fact, because of the overwhelming evidence of wetland indicators on the property (that is, the site conditions met nearly every single test criterion for a wetland), Mr. Hickman stated that he could make that determination with "100 percent certainty." Mr. Hickman concurred with the findings in the earlier inspection report, including one that the filled area is located entirely within a forested floodplain, which is both a surface water and a wetland due to regular flooding in the area for sustained periods of time. Photographs received in evidence, and testimony by Department representatives, confirm that the flooding occurs on a regular basis. See also Finding of Fact 13, supra. Significantly, Mr. Hickman observed that additional filling had occurred since the first inspection some eighteen months earlier, and that there were two signs on the front of his property reading "Needed Clean Fill." Finally, the location of two large cypress trees on the property suggested that an intact and mature floodplain existed before the alterations occurred. The filling poses a threat to the functions of the land, such as vegetation and habitat. Therefore, removal of the concrete debris and sand is necessary in order to restore those functions. While the Department would not promise that he could do so, it did represent that it would consider Respondent's request to remove the debris and sand to the upland area of his property, which would be much less expensive than hauling it offsite. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that despite a warning by the Corps in 1986 that the filling was illegal, he has continued to engage in that activity for at least two reasons: to prevent flooding of his property and to prevent contaminated River water from reaching his fish ponds. He further acknowledged that as recently as 2003 he allowed several trucks to dump concrete debris and sand onto his property. (The concrete debris was obtained from a local Walmart store.) Respondent justified his actions in part on the ground that the Corps failed to respond to his letter in March 1987, and he assumed that this was an indication that the filling was legal. He also contended that the filled area was originally uplands when he purchased the property, but it changed to wetlands due to increased runoff from heavy development in the area and the construction of a dam downstream which caused the River to overflow during heavy rains. As a consequence, his property and others in the area (such as homes on Cyril Drive) have been prone to flooding. However, Mr. Hickman established that a floodplain existed on the property before any filling occurred. In any event, the Department has jurisdiction over both natural and artificial wetlands, and permits are needed for filling either type of wetland. Therefore, while the filling may have been performed for a salutary purpose, after 1984 he needed a permit to do so (assuming that such activities in a wetland are permittable). The fact that the land is zoned agricultural by Hernando County does not negate this requirement.5 Finally, a contention that a wetland is changed to uplands by merely placing dry dirt onto the wetland has been rejected. The land still remains a wetland for jurisdictional purposes. Respondent never filed for an after-the-fact permit (as suggested by the Corps in 1987) because it was too "complicated" to fill out the form. He conceded, however, that he did not ask the Department for assistance in doing so. Except for the explanations discussed above, Respondent presented no mitigating evidence. He has asked that due to his financial circumstances the amount of the fine be moderated or forgiven. At hearing, three Tampa District Office employees established that they spent a total of 70 hours of time on this case. At their hourly rate of pay, this totals $1,850.00 in investigative costs. In addition, Mr. Hickman was required to perform a wetland determination on the property. The normal charge for an assessment on a property of this size is $550.00. The reasonableness of these amounts was not disputed by Respondent. However, the Department is seeking reimbursement of only $500.00.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance for certain signage is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 2, 1989, the Petitioner applied for a variance concerning certain signage on its property located at 2626 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in Clearwater, Florida, which is zoned CH (highway commercial). At hearing, Petitioner abandoned its variance request concerning total square footage of its signage, and stated that the only variance presently by the Petitioner is for 21 feet in height to allow a 41 foot high pole sign to remain after October 13, 1992. This is an sign which has been in place since 1971, and, thus, was in place when the pertinent provisions of the Land Development Code governing sign height were enacted. The Petitioner does not propose to change this sign in any way, but simply seeks authorization to retain the sign after October 13, 1992, the date on which all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance. Petitioner's property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. At that point, U.S. 19 passes over Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and Petitioner contends that without the additional 21 feet in height, this sign will not be visible to motorists along U.S. 19, or to those approaching this intersection driving east on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Without a variance, Petitioner will be required to bring this sign into conformance with the signage height requirements of the Land Development Code by October 13, 1992, and for property zoned CH, the maximum height allowed for signs is twenty feet. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's variance application on September 14, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. The only reason given in support of this variance is that without the continued authorization for the additional height, this sign will be of little economic benefit to Petitioner after October 13, 1992, and Petitioner would be unwilling to expend the funds necessary to reduce the height of this sign since the resulting 20 foot high sign would be of little benefit. Petitioner would rather just remove the sign than to have a 20 foot high sign that is of no economic benefit, according to Nichols.
Findings Of Fact At all times to the issues herein the Department of Environmental Protection was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of water pollution and the issuance of dredge and fill permits in the specified waters of this state. Mr. Byrd has been a resident of the City of Treasure Island, Florida for many years and resides at 123 123rd Avenue in that city. His property is located on Boca Ciega Bay next to a public boat ramp operated by the City. On April 12, 1995, the City of Treasure Island applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a permit to construct a dock six feet wide by seventy-five feet long, located on the edge of its property on which the public boat ramp is located. This property is located in a basin off Boca Ciega Bay, which is classified as a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The dock involves the placement of pilings in the water, and the construction of a walkway thereon. In order to be obtain a permit, the applicant must provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not degrade water quality and will be in the public interest. The project is permanent in nature, but the temporary concerns raised by construction have been properly addressed in the permit. In the instant case, the dock is intended to accommodate the boating public which will utilize it to more safely launch, board, debark, and recover small boats at the ramp in issue. The dock will be equipped with a hand rail which will increase the safety of the project. Evidence establishes that without the dock, boaters have to enter the water to launch and recover their boats on a ramp can be slippery and dangerous. The site currently in use as a boat ramp, a part of which will be used for the dock, is almost totally free of any wildlife. No evidence could be seen of any sea grasses or marine life such as oysters, and there was no indication the proposed site is a marine habitat. Manatees do periodically inhabit the area, and warning signs would be required to require construction be stopped when manatee are in the area. The water depth in the immediate area and the width of the waterway is such that navigation would not be adversely impacted by the dock construction, nor is there any indication that water flow would be impeded. No adverse effect to significant historical or archaeological resources would occur and taken together, it is found that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is within the public interest. Concerning the issue of water quality, the applicant has proposed the use of turbidity curtains during construction which would provide reasonable assurances that water quality would not be degraded by or during construction. The water depths in the area are such that propeller dredging and turbidity associated therewith should not be a problem. No evidence was presented or, apparently is on file, to indicate any documented water quality violations at the site, and it is unlikely that water quality standards will be violated by the construction and operation of the structure. The best evidence available indicates there would be no significant cumulative impacts from this project. Impacts from presently existing similar projects and projects reasonably expected in the future, do not, when combined with the instant project, raise the possibility of adverse cumulative degradation of water quality or other factors of concern. By the same token, it is found that secondary impacts resulting from the construction of the project would be minimal. It is also found that this project is eligible for an exemption from the requirements to obtain a permit because of the Department's implementation on October 3, 1995 of new rules relating to environmental resources. However, the City has agreed to follow through with the permitting process notwithstanding the exemption and to accept the permit including all included conditions. This affords far more protection to the environment than would be provided if the conditions to the permit, now applicable to this project, were avoided under a reliance on the exemption to which the City is entitled under current rules. To be sure, evidence presented by Mr. Byrd clearly establishes the operation of the existing boat ramp creates noise, fumes, diminished water conditions and an atmosphere which is annoying, discomfiting, and unpleasant to him and to some of his neighbors who experience the same conditions. Many of the people using the facility openly use foul language and demonstrate a total lack of respect for others. Many of these people also show no respect for the property of others by parking on private property and contaminating the surrounding area with trash and other discardables. It may well be that the presently existing conditions so described were not contemplated when the ramp was built some twenty years ago. An increase in population using water craft, and the development and proliferation of alternative watercraft, such as the personal watercraft, (Ski-Doo), as well as an apparent decline in personal relations skills have magnified the noise and the problem of fumes and considerably. It is not likely, however, that these conditions, most of which do not relate to water quality standards and the other pertinent considerations involved here, will be increased or affected in any way by the construction of the dock in issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue to the city the requested permit to construct the dock in issue at the existing public boat ramp at the east end of 123rd Avenue right of way in the City of Treasure Island. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Schnell, Esquire 3535 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 James W. Denhardt, Esquire 2700 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
