The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Respondent is the successor agency to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and has permitting authority over the subject project pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's file number for this matter is 311765419. Petitioner, Alden Pond, Inc., is a subsidiary of First Union National Bank of Florida and is the successor in interest to Orchid Island Associates. John C. Kurtz is the designated property manager for this project and appeared at the formal hearing as Alden Pond's authorized agent. THE PROPERTY AND THE VICINITY Petitioner has record title to all of Government Lot 9 in Section 15, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the Jungle Trail Road right of way, and all of Government Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7, Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, less the road right of way for State Road 510. Petitioner does not own land below the mean high water line of the Indian River, which forms the western boundary of the property. Much of the property, approximately the northern half, abuts a part of the Indian River that has been leased by the State of Florida to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first national wildlife refuge established in the United States and has been declared to be a water of international importance. Upland of the proposed project is a golf course and residential development. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II Outstanding Florida Waters. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is part of the Intercoastal Waterway system, is navigable by large vessels, and is an important travel corridor for manatees. The Indian River in the vicinity of the project is a healthy estuarine system. Minor deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards have been recorded. These minor deviations are typical and represent natural conditions for this type of system. Water quality sampling from March 1994 yielded no samples in which deviations from Respondent's dissolved oxygen standards were observed. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT On February 21, 1990, Orchid Island Associates submitted to the Respondent an application for a wetland resource permit to construct a boat basin and canal on its property adjacent to the Indian River. The artificial waterway that Petitioner proposes to construct on its property will, for ease of reference, also be referred to as a canal. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the hydrological channel. Petitioner proposes to dredge from the south terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway a channel, which will be referred to as the access channel. The original project involved, among other features, a canal approximately 6,400 feet long, the dredging of the hydrological channel and the access channel, the construction of 44 docks to be located along the eastern side of the canal, and the dredging of an area adjacent to the canal for a 58 slip marina. The width of the canal was to range between 100 and 200 feet. The original project required the filling of 4.72 acres of wetlands and the dredging of 8.81 acres of wetlands for a direct impact on 13.53 acres of wetlands. On January 15, 1991, Respondent issued a preliminary evaluation letter pertaining to the initial application that contained the following conclusion: "the project cannot be recommended for approval." On September 12, 1991, Respondent issued a Notice of Permit Denial dated September 12, 1991, which stated that the application would be denied. This denial letter did not suggest any revisions that would make the project permittable and represented a strong position by the Respondent that the project as originally proposed should be denied. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial correctly described the project site and the initial proposal as follows: . . . The proposed project is located north of and adjacent to County Road 510, north and east of Wabasso Bridge and adjacent to the eastern shore of the Indian River. The Indian River at the project site is within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, which is classified as Class II, Outstanding Florida Waters. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, also an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water, is immediately west of the project site. Historically, the site of the marina and its associated upland development consisted of a wetland adjacent to the Indian River and a large citrus grove. Subsequently, the wetland was surrounded by a dike and impounded for mosquito control purposes. At some point in the past, a borrow pit 1/ was excavated within the landward (eastern) edge of the impounded wetland. Most of the citrus grove has been converted to a residential community associated with a golf course. * * * The proposed project included excavation of a 6,400 linear ft. canal along the upland/wetland edge between the impoundment and the adjacent upland, dredging the existing borrow pit to a depth of -8 ft. NGVD to create a boat basin that will connect it to the excavated canal, construction of 58 boat slips within the excavated boat basin, excavation of two flushing channels through a portion of the impoundment dike and wetlands within the impoundment to connect the excavated channel to the Indian River and a natural lake within the impoundment, excavation of a 700 ft. long access channel to connect the excavated canal to the Intercoastal Waterway through the seagrass beds along the southern boundary of the project site, filling of 4.72 ac. of wetlands at three locations within the impoundment to create uplands, and construction of a boardwalk along the southern edge of the excavated canal through the wetlands in the impoundment to provide access to the marina basin. To mitigate for the loss of wetlands, the applicant proposes to enhance 68 ac. of wetlands within the mosquito impoundment by returning the impoundment berm to grade and implementing a rotary ditching project and open marsh mosquito management to improve the hydrology of the wetlands in the impoundment, planting high marsh species, and donating the enhanced wetlands to the State of Florida for incorporation into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge through a lease to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The September 12, 1991, Notice of Denial provided, in pertinent part, the following reasons for the denial of the project: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: Water quality data for the Indian River adjacent to the project site indicates that the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) standard is not currently being met. The proposed 8 ft. deep canal and marina basin to the Indian River would be expected to result in introduction of additional low D.O. waters into a system which already does not meet the D.O. standard, thereby resulting in further degradation of the water quality in the Indian River. In addition to the D.O. problem, the project would result in water quality degradation due to the pollutant loading of marina related pollutants from the boats docked at the 58 slips that are proposed as part of the project in the marina basin. Additional water quality degradation also may result from boats that are moored at docks that may be constructed at a later date by the owners of the 44 lots adjacent to the canal, pursuant to the exemption in Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. This exemption provides that private docks in artificially constructed waters are exempt from dredge and fill permitting and may be constructed without a permit providing they meet the size criteria listed in the statute and provided they do not impede navigation, affect flood control, or cause water quality violations. The boats in the canal system and boat basin would be a chronic source of pollutants for the life of the facility. The proposed water depths and slip sizes will make the basin accessible for use by large boats which can be expected to have on-board sanitation devices. The hydrographic report submitted by the applicant indicates the proposed waters will flush with a 2.6 hr. duration. Although this flushing rate will prevent water quality pollutants from being concentrated in the waters of the basin, it also will have the effect of transporting boat related pollutants to the Indian River, thereby causing degradation of the Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is within Class II Waters, prohibited for shellfish harvesting, but is adjacent to Class II Waters, approved for shellfish harvesting. Discussion with the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Regulation and Development, indicates that the pollutant loading from the project would probably cause the adjacent waters to be reclassified as "prohibited for shellfish harvesting." The reclassification of the adjacent waters would lower the existing use of the waterbody. Rules 17-302.300(1), (4), , and (6), Florida Administrative Code, state that: Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. * * * Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. As a result of the above cited factors, degradation of water quality is expected. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project will not result in the degradation of existing water quality in an Outstanding Florida Water and the violation of water quality standards pursuant to Rules 17-312.080(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. Specific State Water Quality Standards in Rules 17-302.500, 17-302.510 and 17-302.550, Florida Administrative Code, affected by the completion of the project include the following: Bacteriological Quality - the median coliform MPN (Most Probable Number) of water shall not exceed seventy (70) per hundred (100) milliliters, and not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples shall exceed a MPN of two hundred and thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters. The fecal coliform bacterial level shall not exceed a median value of 14 MPN per 100 milliliters with not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the samples exceeding 43 MPN per 100 milliliters. Dissolved Oxygen - the concentration in all waters shall not average less than 5 milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Oils and Greases: Dissolved or emulsified oils and greases shall not exceed 5.0 milligrams per liter. No undissolved oil, or visible oil defined as iridescence, shall be present so as to cause taste or odor, or otherwise interfere with the beneficial use of waters. In addition the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that ambient water quality in the OFW will not be degraded pursuant to Rule 17-4.242(2)(a)2.b, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, pursuant to Rule 17-312.080(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the Department shall deny a permit for dredging or filling in Class II waters which are not approved for shellfish harvesting unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure to protect those waters and waters in the vicinity. The plan or procedure shall detail the measures to be taken to prevent significant damage to the immediate project areas and to adjacent area and shall provide reasonable assurance that the standards for Class II waters will not be violated. In addition to impacts to water quality, the project is expected to adversely affect biological resources. A portion (estimated at between 0.4 and 0.5 ac.) of the access channel alignment is vegetated by seagrasses, the dominant species being Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal weed). Seagrass beds provide important habitat and forage for a variety of wildlife species. The loss of seagrass beds will result in a loss of productivity to the entire system that would be difficult to replace. The 4.72 ac. of wetlands proposed to be filled and the excavation required for the proposed channels (approximately 38 ac.) are productive high marsh and mixed mangrove wetlands which are providing wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. These wetlands have been adversely impacted by the freeze of 1989, but they appear to be recovering well. The proposed mitigation would provide some benefits through exotic removal and increased hydrologic connection to the Indian River. However, these benefits would not be adequate to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed wetland losses for this project. The project site and the adjacent Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge are used for nesting and foraging by a variety of species, including little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) (Species of Special Concern (SSC)--Florida Game and Fresh Water fish Commission (FGFWFC)), reddish egret (E. rufescens) (SSC-FGFWFC), snowy egrets (E. thula) (SSC-FGFWFC), tricolored herons (E. tricolor) (SSC-FGFWFC), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) (SSC-FGFWFC), roseate spoonbills (Ajaja ajaja) (SSC-FGFWFC), least tern (Sterna antillarum) (threatened-FGFWFC), and wood storks (endangered-FGFWFC). The construction of the project and the increased boating activity due to the project would result in the disturbance of those species that use the wetlands in the project area. The Indian River adjacent to the project site is used by the West Indian Manatee (endangered-FGFWFC). The increased boat traffic would increase the chance of manatee deaths due to boat impact. In addition, the excavation of the access channel through the seagrass beds would decrease the available forage for manatees in the project area. For the above reasons, this project is also not clearly in the public interest, as required pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, because it is expected to: adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; be permanent in nature; diminish the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. On September 12, 1991, the owner and holder of the mortgage on the Orchid Island development (which includes the real property on which the Petitioner hopes to construct the project at issue in this proceeding) instituted foreclosure proceedings. The circuit judge who presided over the foreclosure proceeding soon thereafter appointed an interim receiver to manage the property until a receiver who would manage the property for the duration of the foreclosure proceeding could be appointed. THE PROJECT MODIFICATIONS AND FACTS AS TO ESTOPPEL On October 31, 1991, representatives of Orchid Island Associates met with Respondent's staff to discuss this application. Trudie Bell, the Environmental Specialist assigned to supervise this application, and Douglas MacLaughlin, an attorney employed by Respondent, attended the meeting. Those attending the meeting on behalf of Orchid Island Associates included the interim trustee, the attorney for Orchid Island Associates, and Darrell McQueen, who at all times pertinent to this proceeding was the project engineer. Mr. McQueen was upset that the project was going to be denied and wanted to know what could be done to make it a permittable project. In response to Mr. McQueen, Ms. Bell, without making any promises, suggested the following modifications to the project that might make it permittable: moving the canal more upland, elimination of the boat basin/marina, reducing the depth of the artificial waterway, and increasing the width of the littoral zone. On November 11, 1991, the representatives of Orchid Island Associates responded to the Respondent's suggested modifications and agreed to make the modifications. In an effort to design a project that would be acceptable to Respondent, Orchid Island Associates proposed to the Respondent to make certain modifications to the design of the project. Petitioner has agreed to those modifications which include the following: Elimination of the boat basin and associated 58 dock marina and clubhouse, but with the addition of 18 relatively narrow residential lots, each of which would have a dock on the south end of the waterway. 2/ Reduction of the depth of the artificial waterway to -7 feet NGVD from the proposed -8 feet NGVD. Realignment of the artificial waterway as depicted on the sealed drawings submitted to Respondent and dated January 28, 1993. Increasing the width of the littoral zone to be created along the length of the artificial waterway to 40 feet on the west side and 10 feet on the east side. On November 12, 1991, John C. Kurtz was appointed the receiver of the Orchid Island Associates property and remained the receiver until the property was conveyed to Petitioner at a foreclosure sale on July 31, 1993. After it acquired the property, Petitioner employed Mr. Kurtz to manage the subject property. Mr. Kurtz has been active in the project since his appointment as the receiver of the property. On November 21, 1991, Petitioner met with Respondent's staff, including Ms. Bell, to discuss the modifications. At that meeting, the Respondent's staff reacted favorably to the modifications agreed to by Petitioner. Ms. Bell described the revisions as "excellent" and "a great idea" and stated that the project was "a nice project" and that it looked like the project was heading in the right direction. Ms. Bell also represented that the Respondent would grant the Petitioner extensions of time to allow for a formal revision if the project was deemed permittable. Ms. Bell kept her superiors informed of the status of her review. On December 11, 1991, Charles Barrowclaugh, an employee of the Respondent, made an inspection of the site and informed representatives of the Petitioner that he had briefed Carol Browner, who was Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation, as to the project and the proposed modifications. Mr. Barrowclaugh stated that he believed the project was permittable. Petitioner was encouraged by Mr. Barrowclaugh's comments and by the fact that he would incur the expenses of traveling to the site. Between December 11, 1991, and November 13, 1992, Petitioner provided information to Respondent pertaining to the revised project. This additional information included a description of the revised plan and a revised schematic drawing, but it did not include detailed drawings of the revised project. On November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell wrote to Mr. McQueen a letter that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The Bureau of Wetland Resource Management has reviewed the revised plan and additional information submitted on September 16. The revised proposal appears to address all of the issues that made the original proposal unpermittable. The detailed 8.5 by 11 inch permitting drawings will have to be revised to reflect the revised proposal and submitted to the Bureau for review. Kelly Custer and Orlando Rivera will be reviewing the project in the future. Petitioner interpreted that letter to mean that the Respondent intended to permit the project. At the time she wrote the letter of November 13, 1992, Ms. Bell thought the revised project would be permitted. Petitioner relied on the oral representations made by Respondent's staff and on the November 13, 1992, letter in continuing pursuit of a permit. Absent these encouraging comments by Respondent's staff, Petitioner would have discontinued pursuit of the permit. Although Petitioner was understandably encouraged by the discussions its representatives had with Respondent's staff, it knew, or should have known, that the favorable comments it was receiving from members of Respondent's staff were preliminary and that additional information would be required and further evaluation of the project would take place. Petitioner's representatives knew that the staff with whom they were having these discussions did not have the authority to approve the application, but that they could only make recommendations to their superiors. In late 1992, Kevin Pope, an Environmental Specialist employed by Respondent, was assigned as the primary reviewer of the revised project. At the time he became the primary reviewer of the project, Mr. Pope did not make an immediate, independent evaluation of the project, and relied on what other staffers who had been involved in the review told him. Until he conducted his own review of the project, Mr. Pope believed that the project was "clearly permissible". Mr. Pope informed a representative of the Petitioner of that belief and told the representative that he was prepared to start drafting the permit once he received final drawings documenting the modifications to the project. Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Pope received the drawings he requested. After he received and reviewed the final drawings, Mr. Pope determined that all issues raised by the denial letter had not been addressed. Among the concerns he had was the fact that the project would dredge into the Indian River to the Intercoastal Waterway and that part of the dredging activity (at the north end of the project) would be in Class II shellfish approved waters. Mr. Pope again contacted the state and federal agencies that had originally commented on the project, described the proposed modifications to the project, and requested comments. Most of the agencies continued to object to the project. On August 5, 1992, Mr. Pope held a meeting with the commenting agencies and with representatives of the Petitioner to discuss the objections to the project. 3/ The agencies provided additional comments after this meeting and most continued to oppose the project. Mr. Kurtz testified that on June 1, 1993, Stacey Callahan, an attorney employed by Respondent, told him that she was attempting to draft the permit for the project. Ms. Callahan asked for sample wording for a restrictive covenant or for an easement that would limit the number of boats that could use the proposed docks. Subsequent to that inquiry, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Pope that the project would be denied. Petitioner has not made any specific proposal to assure a limitation on the number of boats that will be able to dock in the proposed canal. In June of 1993, a large number of objections to the project were filed with Respondent by members of the public. In early July, 1993, Secretary Wetherell responded to those objectors with a letter stating, in part, that the "Department's letter of November 1992 indicating an intent to issue for the project was imminent appears to have been premature." On September 20, 1993, Mr. Pope informed Petitioner's attorney that the Respondent was not going to change its position that the project, even with the modifications, should be denied. The decision not to permit the modified project was made by Mr. Pope. The only permit application filed by the Petitioner was the application for the initial permit. No formal amended application that incorporates all of the changes that Petitioner discussed with Respondent's staff was filed. A total of $74,735 was spent on behalf of the applicant on this project between December 26, 1991, (the date of the meeting with Mr. Barrowclaugh) and July 31, 1993, (the date the property was conveyed to Petitioner). From July 31, 1993, through April of 1994, Petitioner spent an additional $47,488 on the application for this project. The expenditures after July 31, 1993, included engineering costs that were incurred before that date. These figures do not include the costs of this proceeding. THE REVISED PROJECT The revised project may be summarily described as follows: Petitioner proposes to construct a canal that will be approximately 6,400 feet long, up to 200 feet wide, and -7 NGVD deep as depicted on drawings that have been submitted into evidence. There will be a littoral zone 40 feet wide on the west side of the canal and a littoral zone 10 feet wide on the east side. A hydrological channel, proposed from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable a proper flow of water through the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 70 feet in length, and -3 NGVD. Petitioner proposes to construct a barrier at the north terminus of the canal to prevent manatees and boats from entering the canal from the north and has agreed to maintain that barrier. An access channel, proposed from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway to enable boats access to the canal, will be some 200 feet wide, 700 feet in length, and -7 NGVD. A total of 62 docks are proposed. The project includes a mitigation plan that will be discussed below. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The construction of the hydrological channel would be in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters. Dredging in Class II conditionally approved shellfish waters is prohibited unless a variance is issued by Respondent that would permit this otherwise prohibited activity. Petitioner's attorney submitted a letter to the Respondent on August 18, 1993, for a variance to construct the channel from the north terminus of the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: DEP Rule 17-312.080(17) states: "Permits for dredging or filling directly in Class II or Class III waters which are approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources shall not be issued." This provision is applicable to the pending application by Orchid Island Associates. Accordingly, we discussed Orchid Island requesting a variance pursuant to Section 403.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-103.100, Florida Administrative Code, as a means of overcoming this prohibition. Since the dredge and fill application is pending, you indicated it would be appropriate for Orchid Island to ask, during final review of this application, that the Department also consider a request for a variance pursuant to the above mentioned statute and rule. Please consider this letter that request. . . . Petitioner did not submit along with its request the fee required by Respondent to process that request. Respondent did not advise Petitioner that it would not process its request without the requisite application fee until the prehearing stipulation was prepared for this proceeding shortly before the formal hearing. There was no evidence that Petitioner attempted to check on the status of its request for a variance or that it expected Respondent to act on the request for a variance independent of its final review of the overall project. As of the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not submitted to Respondent the fee that Respondent asserts is required before the request for the variance will be processed. Respondent asserted that position in the prehearing statement that was filed shortly before the formal hearing. The evidence as to the flow of water through the proposed canal assumed the existence of the hydrological channel from the north terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway and the existence of the access channel from the south terminus of the proposed canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT The revised version of the artificial waterway will be excavated primarily from uplands, but the excavation will require that 3.6 acres of wetlands be filled and 7.1 acres of wetlands be dredged. The direct impact on wetlands will be at least 10.7 acres. The mitigation plan proposes that the berms around the mosquito impoundment will be leveled, the berm ditches will be filled, and certain rotary ditches will be dredged. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that proposed activity was not established. The artificial waterway will be constructed utilizing a series of separate construction cells, a rim ditch, and filtration chambers. All excavated material will be disposed of on uplands. The construction system will filter most solids. Turbidity suppression devices will be used to minimize any turbidity associated with the excavation of the access channel at the south terminus and the hydrological channel at the north terminus. Petitioner established that its proposed construction techniques are consistent with best management practices. The small body of water that is referred to as the former borrow pit in the denial letter of September 12, 1991, is known as Boot Lake. Petitioner proposes to dredge the eastern end of Boot Lake, consisting of an area 800 feet by 180 feet (3.3 acres), to create part of the canal. The access channel at the south terminus of the canal will be approximately 700 feet in length and will have to be hydraulically excavated in the Indian River to connect the canal to the Intercoastal Waterway. The hydrological channel at the north terminus of the canal will be hydraulically excavated to connect the canal to the Indian River. The connection will require approximately 70 feet of dredging to -3 NGVD, which is the minimum necessary to maintain the proper flow of water through the canal. HYDROLOGY OF THE CANAL The artificial waterway will function as a flow-through system driven by a difference in the water surface elevation (the head difference) between the north terminus and the south terminus. The flushing of the artificial waterway far exceeds the Respondent's flushing requirement benchmark, which is a flushing time of four days. If a hypothetical pollutant's concentration is reduced to 10 percent of its initial concentration in four days, the flushing is considered to be acceptable. The flushing time for the system is approximately 2.6 hours, which will produce five total volume replacements per tidal cycle. The predicted flushing of the artificial waterway is quite rapid and energetic. The predominate flow of water in the artificial waterway is from north to south. At times, however, the flow will be from the south to the north. At the request of the Respondent, Petitioner conducted a tracer dye study within the Indian River at the proposed south terminus of the artificial waterway. No tracer dye study was requested for the north terminus. Although there was some disagreement as to the import of the tracer dye study, it established that pollutants introduced into the Indian River from the canal would be rapidly dispersed in the Indian River. WATER QUALITY - THE CANAL The artificial waterway will be classified as Class III waters of the State. Water quality within the artificial waterway will reflect the current water quality in the Indian River. Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the water quality within the artificial waterway itself will not violate state standards. Two potential sources of pollutants to the artificial waterway have been identified. The first source is stormwater runoff through the stormwater management system associated with the upland development. The second is pollution inherent with the docking and operation of large vessels. Respondent interprets its rules so that discharge of pollutants into the artificial waterway will constitute indirect discharges to the Indian River. Because of the excellent flushing capacity of the canal, pollutants will not tend to accumulate in the canal. A pollutant entering the canal or a spill of pollutants into the canal will mix very little in the canal, probably less than five percent, so the pollutant will discharge from the canal into the Indian River as a plug. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether pollutants introduced into the canal will enter the Indian River in measurable quantities. Testimony was elicited from Dr. Roessler, one of Petitioner's experts, that water entering the Indian River from the artificial waterway will not contain pollutants that are either measurably or statistically differentiable from the Indian River itself. That result depends, however, on the amount and the source of the pollutant introduced into the canal. Because of the rapid flushing of the canal, small spills or slowly released discharges of pollutants are not expected to result in water quality degradation in the Indian River. Since a pollutant introduced into the canal will exit in a plug essentially in the same concentration as it entered the canal, Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances that large spills or discharges of pollutants from vessels or from other sources will not be discharged into the Indian River in concentrations that can be measured or that such large spills or discharges will not degrade the quality of the Indian River. Water from the canal will come out of both the north end and the south end of the canal. Some of the plume coming out of the north end may tend to hug the shoreline, with some of the plume reentering the canal when the tides change. Stormwater runoff contains significant amounts of fecal coliform, sometimes more than raw sewage. The stormwater management system associated with the upland development was permitted by the St. Johns Water Management District. The majority of the system is currently in place and functioning to retain stormwater runoff. The stormwater management system is designed to retain all of the first 4.75 inches of rainfall and most of the first 6.2 inches of rainfall. The design of this system exceeds the requirements imposed by the St. Johns Water Management District, which is that the first 1.5 inches of rainfall be retained. Stormwater management regulations are technology-based treatment criteria. If a system meets the retention requirement, it is presumed that no water quality will be violated by discharges through the system. Petitioner established that the stormwater management system was designed and constructed to retain at least three times the amount of rainfall required by the St. Johns Water Management District. Construction of the proposed canal will intercept two stormwater discharge pipes from the upland golf course and residential development. There was no evidence that the St. Johns Water Management System has reviewed this change in the system that has been permitted. The proposed change in where the outflow will be discharged could be significant since the discharge pipes are presently designed to discharge overflows from the system into wetland areas that provided additional natural treatment of the overflow before the overflow reaches the Indian River. With this change the overflow will be discharged during extraordinary storm events into the canal and thereafter into the Indian River without additional natural treatment. Because there will be modifications to the stormwater system the approval of that system by the St. Johns Water Management District should not be relied upon as providing reasonable assurances that no water quality violations will be caused by stormwater discharge. If this project is to be permitted, Petitioner should be required as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit to have the proposed changes to the system reviewed by the St. Johns Water Management District and it should be required to obtain an amendment to the stormwater management system permit that would authorize the proposed changes. The project contemplates the construction of 62 docks. The size and the docking capacity of each dock has not been established. While Petitioner presented testimony that it is likely that only 50 percent of the docks will likely be used at any one time, that testimony is considered to be speculative. The number and size of boats that can or will be docked in the canal at any one time or on a regular basis is unknown. It is likely that each dock will have docking capacity for at least one vessel up to 60 feet in length and for a smaller vessel. The manner in which these docks will be constructed was not established. Chromatic copper arsenic, which is frequently used to coat docks and anti-fouling paints containing heavy metals used on boats are sources of contamination to shellfishing. Oils and greases from boats contain hydrocarbons which can adversely impact shellfish. These contaminants can have adverse impacts to shellfish at very low concentrations. Petitioner has agreed to prohibit live-aboard vessels and to prohibit the fueling and maintenance of vessels within the artificial waterway. Sewage containing fecal coliform dumped or spilled from boats or from stormwater discharge is a primary source of contamination for shellfishing waters. It is the practice of the Respondent's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section to close waters to shellfishing in the vicinity of marinas, mainly due to potential contamination from untreated sewage. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section does not recommend the immediate closing of shellfishing waters when a project involves single family docks associated with a residence because it assumes people will use bathroom facilities in the house instead of on the boat. The Respondent does not have reasonable assurances that there will be houses associated with each of the 50 foot lots designated at the southern end of the canal. If a proposed facility has boat docks, but does not have houses associated with each dock, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would recommend closure of shellfishing in the vicinity of the facility. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section would not recommend immediate closure of the shellfishing waters in the vicinity of this proposed project because it has assumed that each of the proposed docks will be associated with a house. If this project is to be permitted, reasonable assurances should be required that a residence will be constructed before or contemporaneously with the construction of a dock. The modifications made by Petitioner to the project will reduce the danger of pollutants from vessels in the artificial waterway. However, because the number and the size of the vessels that will be using the artificial waterway was not established, the extent of pollutants from vessels is unknown. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that measurable pollutants would not indirectly discharge into the Indian River from the canal. IMPACT ON WETLANDS Of the approximately 10.70 acres of wetlands that will be directly impacted by the proposed waterway, 4.10 acres are predominately impacted by invasive exotic (non-native) plants, 4.27 acres are somewhat impacted by exotic plants, and 2.23 acres are not impacted by exotic plants. The exotic plants found at the project site are primarily Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. The mitigation plan, which will be discussed below, proposes that the berms constructed around the mosquito impoundment area be removed and the rim ditches that abut the berms be filled. The amount of wetlands to be impacted by that activity was not established. The project contemplates that rotary ditches will be constructed at different places in the mosquito impoundment area after the berms are removed and the berm ditches filled. The areas to be impacted by the construction of the rotary ditches were not identified. The Petitioner proposes to dredge out the entire east end of Boot Lake for use as part of the canal. This area will be approximately 800 feet by 180 feet and will be 3.3 acres. Boot Lake is a fairly healthy biological system, about the same as the Indian River. It was found to contain 22 species of fish and seven species of birds, with brown pelican and the great blue heron dominant. Eleven species of crustacean, six species of mollusks, 24 vermes 4/ and one coelenterate were collected from the lake. Replacement of the eastern portion of Boot Lake with the canal will adversely impact those species. Between the Indian River and the proposed waterway is a mosquito impoundment constructed in the early 1960s. The mosquito impoundment and associated berms total approximately 105 acres. The exact area was not established since there is an unresolved issue as to the exact location of the mean high water line. 5/ The impoundment is breached in several locations and no longer functions efficiently as a mosquito impoundment. IMPACTS ON SEAGRASSES The excavation of the access channel from the south terminus to the Intercoastal Waterway will involve the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of a healthy, productive seagrass bed. Seagrasses are beneficial for wildlife habitat as they provide a substrate for algae and diatoms. Seagrasses are a direct food source for manatees and other species, and provide shelter and protection for fish. Seagrasses observed in this area where grasses will be eliminated are Halodule writtii, Syringodium filiforme, and Halophia johnsonii. Halophia, one of the identified species in this seagrass bed, is designated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as a rare and endangered species. Besides the seagrasses actually eliminated where the channel is to be constructed, other nearby seagrasses are also likely to be affected. The sides of the channel are likely to slough to some degree, which would adversely impact the seagrasses abutting the channel. The operation of power boats, even at slow speeds, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. Maintenance dredging, which will be required every few years, will cause turbidity that will likely adversely impact seagrasses. There are presently thousands of acres of seagrasses located within the Indian River. There has been a historical decline in seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon. Since 1950, there has been a 30 percent loss of seagrasses and seagrass habitat. IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH The proposed project will have an adverse impact on shellfish and shellfishing. At a minimum, the project will require dredging in a shellfishing area. The hydrological channel that will be dredged to connect the north terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be located in Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. Both commercial and recreational shellfishing occur in the Indian River adjacent to the project site. The predominate flow of water through the canal will be southerly. There will be, however, a predictable northerly flow of waters that will cause waters from the proposed canal and any associated contaminants contained in those waters to flow from the north terminus of the canal into the Class II waters that have been conditionally approved for shellfishing. The proposed project may introduce a significant amount of freshwater into the adjoining shellfishing waters of Indian River, primarily in the vicinity of the north terminus of the canal. Any additional freshwater discharges to shellfishing waters is a concern because fecal coliform bacteria survive longer in freshwater than saltwater. Three likely sources of freshwater that would be added by this project to the Indian River in the conditionally approved shellfishing area were identified by Respondent. First, the proposed canal appears to be intersecting near its north terminus with a sulphur spring or artesian well which produces fresh water with a high sulphur content. Fresh water will likely be introduced into the canal from this source and discharged into the shellfishing waters when the tidal flow becomes northward. Second, freshwater may be introduced into the canal from the overflow pipes from the surface water management system. This source of freshwater would not be significant. Third, additional freshwater may enter the area after the berms around the mosquito impoundment area are removed as contemplated by the mitigation plan. The extent of this source of freshwater was not established. If this project is permitted, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section will monitor this area for water quality to determine if the area will have to be closed for shellfishing. This additional monitoring, for which Respondent will pay, will be required because of the potential adverse impacts this project presents to shellfishing. Because of evidence of deteriorating water quality, the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section is recommending that the shellfishing waters adjacent to the site be reclassified from "conditionally approved" to "conditionally restricted". In "conditionally restricted" waters, shellfish can still be harvested, but the harvested shellfish have to be placed in designated waters or in on-land facilities so the shellfish can cleanse themselves of fecal coliform before going to market. The conditions in the area of the proposed project are not yet bad enough to prohibit shellfishing. IMPACT ON MANATEES There are approximately 2,000 manatees living in Florida waters, with approximately 1,000 living on the east coast and approximately 1,000 living on the west coast. The manatee is an endangered species, and the long-term survival of the species is not secure. The Indian River in the area of the proposed project provides good habitat for manatees and is a major travel corridor for several hundred manatees. Indian River County is one of 13 key counties that has been designated by the Governor and Cabinet to address special manatee concerns. Manatees traveling back and forth in this area usually use the channel of the Intercoastal Waterway because it is deeper and allows manatees an easier travel route. Speed zones for boat traffic are an effective manatee protection mechanism. The artificial waterway will be posted as an idle speed zone. The area where the access channel connecting the south terminus of the canal with the Intercoastal Waterway will be dredged is presently designated as a slow speed zone and the access channel itself will be marked. Petitioner has agreed to implement Respondent's standard manatee conditions. Seagrasses are an important source of food for manatees. The project contemplates that 0.05 acres of seagrass will be dredged, but that Spartina will be planted in parts of the littoral zone. While manatees eat Spartina to some extent, they prefer seagrasses. Since there are thousands of acres of seagrass located in the Indian River, it is concluded that the elimination of 0.05 acres of seagrass associated with this project is negligible and will not adversely affect manatees. A barrier to navigation will be maintained at the north terminus of the waterway to preclude boat access and limit access to the waterway by manatees. Manatees would be unable to enter or leave the artificial waterway via the north terminus. The artificial waterway will not attract manatees and should not, in and of itself, adversely impact manatees. The main adverse impact to manatees from this proposed project is the threat of collisions by boats that leave the canal and enter the waters of the Indian River, including the Intercoastal Waterway. At least ten West Indian manatees have been killed by boats in Indian River County since 1981. Even with the speed limits, the increase in boating in this area will present an increased risk to manatees. IMPACT ON BIRDS No species of wading birds, including those listed as endangered or threatened, nests or roosts within the project site. The project site is not currently heavily utilized by wading birds, but several species of wading birds were observed foraging for food in Boot Lake. It is reasonable to expect that dredging of Boot Lake and the increased boat traffic will have an adverse impact on birds. Diving birds, such as the brown pelican and least tern, will benefit from the increased open waterway created by the canal, which should serve as a feeding habitat. Wading birds congregate and nest in rookeries. The area of the proposed project is within the foraging range of 14 active rookeries, and it is reasonable to expect that those rookeries will be disturbed by the increased boat use or human activity that the project will bring to this area. Officials of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge have observed such disturbances and are opposed to this project. The pressure of human and boating activities on bird rookeries in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, including human intrusion into buffer zones established to protect the birds, has resulted in a continuing decline of the bird population since 1960. When disturbed by boats or by humans, the parent wading bird will often leave the nest, which exposes the eggs or the chicks to attack by predators or to overexposure to sunlight. Boaters will often cause wading birds who are foraging for food to flush, which disturbs their search for food. Certain species of wading birds are flushed more frequently and for longer distances when flushed from narrow tidal creeks in Spartina marshes (a habitat similar to the proposed canal) than in open shoreline habitat. IMPACT ON FISH The existing ditches inside the mosquito impoundment berms presently provide a habitat similar to that of a tidal creek for a variety of fish, including juvenile snook, tarpon, red drum, black drum, lady fish, and mullet. The proposed project will result in the filling of these habitats and impoundments. As a consequence of that activity, these species of fish will be adversely impacted by the project. Although Petitioner proposes to construct certain rotary ditches that it asserts would provide a habitat similar to that provided by the existing ditches, Petitioner has not submitted any plans or drawings or other specific information concerning these rotary ditches and has not provided reasonable assurances that these proposed rotary will replace the habitat that will be eliminated by the filling of the existing ditches. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Other projects have been permitted on the Indian River north and south of the proposed project that have increased boat traffic on the Indian River in the vicinity of the project. The Respondent has not identified any similar projects which have been permitted in the vicinity within the last five years. The only similar application pending before the Respondent in the vicinity of the project is for two docks north of the project site. Although Respondent established that boat traffic on the Indian River has increased, this project is unique in scope and design, and it is concluded that Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that no negative cumulative impacts will be associated with the project. OTHER PERMITTING CRITERIA The parties stipulated to the following facts that pertain to permitting criteria: The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. The project will not adversely affect the property of others. The proposed waterway will be located almost entirely on private property in areas not currently utilized for fishing or other recreational activities. Except for the impacts on shellfishing, birds, and fish discussed above, the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values within the vicinity of the project. THE MITIGATION PLAN Petitioner has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts associated with the type project it is proposing. Because there will be adverse impacts to an Outstanding Florida Water, the project can be permitted only if it is determined that the mitigation plan offsets the adverse impacts and makes the project clearly in the public interest. Petitioner's mitigation plan was contained in the original application and was revised between October 1991 and January 1992. Respondent considered the current mitigation plan in its review of this project. The current mitigation plan consists of the creation of wetlands, the enhancement of wetlands, and the preservation and donation of wetlands owned by Petitioner within the mosquito impoundment. The estimated cost of creation and enhancement of the mitigation plan is $600,000. Petitioner proposes to create approximately 14 acres of wetlands by removing the mosquito impoundment berms and converting other uplands within the impoundment to wetlands. These areas will be revegetated with various wetland plant species including red, black, and white mangroves. In addition, Petitioner proposes to create a forty foot wide intertidal littoral zone along the entire length of the western side of the artificial waterway and a ten foot wide littoral zone along the entire eastern side of the artificial waterway. Approximately three acres of the littoral zone will be created from uplands. The littoral zone will be revegetated with 80 percent cord grass and 20 percent red mangrove. Petitioner proposes to implement an open marsh mosquito control management program consisting of the elimination of natural accumulations of water in low lying areas within the impoundment by rotary ditching small channels to allow these areas to drain and to allow predator fish access to the areas. Petitioner will remove exotic plant species throughout the impoundment and will revegetate with native species such as red, black, and white mangroves. Petitioner proposes to monitor the project area to assure that exotic plant species do not re-colonize. The mosquito impoundment area and the associated berms is estimated as being approximately 105 acres. Because of the difficulty in determining the mean high water line and because of the number of breaches in the berms, the precise acreage within the impoundment area that is not currently sovereign lands was not established. If accurately surveyed, it is possible that the amount of acreage within the impoundment owned by Petitioner may be determined to be up to 10 percent less than is currently estimated. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is found that 105 acres is a reasonable estimate of the area of the impoundment owned by Petitioner. After completion of the enhancement program, Petitioner proposes to donate all the property it owns within the impoundment to the State of Florida. Petitioner asserts that it would have the right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River if this project is not permitted and that these docks would not be subject to Respondent's permitting jurisdiction. The construction of such docks would have an adverse impact on manatees and seagrasses. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner offers to waive its right to construct single family docks from its property directly into the Indian River. EVALUATION OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The wetland in the existing impoundment area is presently a good biological system that contains a good diversity of plants and animals. While Petitioner's proposals will enhance this area, the evaluation of that enhancement should take into consideration the quality of the existing system. There are at least three existing breaches in the berm system. Through these breaches there is some tidal influences and the export of detrital material. Because of the relatively isolated nature of the mosquito impoundment, it currently contributes little to the productivity of the Indian River. The removal of the berm system will result in greater tidal influence in the impoundment area. As a consequence, much of the leaf litter from mangroves within the impoundment that presently accumulates on site would be exported as detrital material to the Indian River, which will add material to the food chain. It is expected that increased tidal influence will also result in an improvement in the dissolved oxygen levels within the impoundment. The reestablishment of tidal influence within the impoundment area will increase habitat for fish, shrimp, and crabs, and therefore benefit the Indian River. Removal of the impoundment berms to reestablish tidal influences within the impoundment area will increase and improve feeding and forage habitat for wading birds. Consequently, wading birds that nest in the vicinity of the project will be benefited. Increased tidal influence will likely result in better growth for mangroves which would create roosting sites for wading birds where none presently exist. Currently, Australian pines are the dominate species in areas within the impoundment area. Other areas of the impoundment are heavily populated by Brazilian pepper. Australian pines and Brazilian peppers do not serve as food sources for any native wildlife and have the potential to crowd out native plant species such as mangroves. If not removed, the potential exists for Brazilian pepper to become the dominate plant species. Removal of exotics and replanting with native species is a benefit to the Indian River system. With an appropriate monitoring plan, the exotic removal should be successful. If the project is permitted, the implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Because of widespread mosquito control activities, the high marsh ecosystem is now rare in the Indian River system. The restoration of the impoundment area to an area of high marsh would be of benefit to the Indian River ecosystem. Prior to alteration by man, the mosquito impoundment was a high marsh ecosystem consisting primarily of black and white mangroves over an understory of succulent plants. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the Petitioner's proposals would result in the impoundment area returning to a high marsh area. While the impoundment area will be enhanced by the Petitioner's proposals, it is found that whether the area will be returned to a high marsh system is speculative. The mosquito impoundment is breached in various locations and, as a consequence, the impoundment is not functioning to control mosquitoes as it was originally designed. The current primary mechanism for mosquito control within the breached mosquito impoundment is aerial spraying of insecticides. The proposed removal of the existing berms will not adversely affect mosquito control and may positively affect mosquito control due to the increased accessibility of the impoundment by natural predators such as fish. This open marsh management plan is an effective means of controlling mosquitoes. The wetland creation proposed by Petitioner should have a high rate of success. Petitioner has agreed to implement a suitable monitoring plan to further guarantee the success of the proposal. If the project is permitted, the implementation of a suitable monitoring plan should be a condition of the permit. Scraping down the mosquito berms will create more wetlands, but the earth from the berms will be placed in the adjacent ditches, which presently serve as valuable tidal creek type habitat. Therefore, the mitigation itself will have some adverse impact. Petitioner's unspecified proposal to put in some rotary ditches to offset the loss of tidal creek habitat is inadequate in that there has been no specific proposal as to the location, size, shape, configuration, or acreage of the proposed rotary ditches. While planting of the littoral zones on the edges of the canal with Spartina provides some biological value, the growth of Spartina on the ten foot ledge on the east side will be impacted by boats and docks. The littoral zones will likely perform valuable wetland functions if properly planted and monitored and will likely become a productive wetland system that will provide habitat for wading birds. If the project is permitted, the Petitioner should be required to monitor the Spartina planting to ensure its successful growth. Even if the creation of the 13.9 acres of wetlands is successful, it will take years to become a mature biological system similar to the wetlands they are to replace. This time lag should be taken into account when evaluating the mitigation plan. There are adverse impacts from this proposed project that the mitigation plan does not offset. The mitigation plan does not offset the elimination of seagrasses, the loss of the Boot Lake habitat, the potential adverse impacts to shellfish and shellfishing, or the impacts to manatees. It is likely that property owners wishing to construct docks directly into the Indian River would have to get a permit from Respondent to gain access to the parts of the property where these docks could be constructed. Any proposal to extend docks into the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge would likely be prevented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whether such docks would, or could, be constructed is speculative, and this portion of the mitigation plan should be accorded little weight. As part of its mitigation plan, Petitioner proposes to donate approximately 105 acres to the State of Florida. This is considered to be a favorable aspect of the mitigation plan. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the mitigation plan offsets the negative impacts of this project so that the project becomes "clearly in the public interest." This issue is resolved by finding that even when the mitigation plan and the conditions that are recommended herein are considered, this project is "not clearly in the public interest."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which denies the modified application for the subject project. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., is entitled to a environmental resource permit for the construction of a wooden footbridge over the Estero River east of U.S. Route 41 and authorization to obtain by easement a right to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc. (Koreshan) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the Koreshan heritage. Koreshan derives its heritage from a largely self-sufficient community that occupied land in south Lee County. For several years, Koreshan has owned a parcel of 14.56 acres at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 41 and the Estero River. This parcel is bounded on the south by Corkscrew Road and contains an amphitheater and historical house, midway between the river and Corkscrew Road. The south end of this parcel contains a museum and parking area with access to Corkscrew Road. The approximate dimensions of the 14.56-acre parcel are 544 feet along the river, 496 feet along Corkscrew Road, and about 1273 feet along the west and the east property lines. The west property line is U.S. Route 41. The right-of-way for U.S. Route 41 is wider at the southern two-thirds of the parcel than the northern one-third of the parcel. A sidewalk runs on the east side of U.S. Route 41 from north of the river, across the U.S. Route 41 bridge, along the west boundary of Koreshan's property, at least to an entrance near the middle of the 14.56-acre parcel. In October 1996, Koreshan acquired 8.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route 41 and the river. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide parking for persons coming to Koreshan-sponsored events, such as music performances, at the 14.56-acre site. Koreshan rents a small portion of this northerly parcel to a canoe-rental business, which operates where the bridge and river meet. To assist their visitors-some of whom are elderly and disabled--in gaining access to the 14.56-acre site, on November 26, 1996, Koreshan filed an application for a permit and authorization to construct a wooden footbridge across the Estero River about 315 feet east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. The source of the Estero River is to the east of the U.S. Route 41 bridge and the location of the proposed bridge. After passing under the U.S. Route 41 bridge, the river runs along the Koreshan state park, which is a short distance east of U.S. Route 41, before it empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Estero Bay, which is a state aquatic preserve. The portion of the river at the site of the proposed bridge is an Outstanding Florida Waterway (OFW) and a Class III water. The river is popular with canoeists and kayakers. Persons may rent canoes and kayaks at the canoe rental business operating on the 8.5-acre parcel or the Koreshan state park. Although most canoeists and kayakers proceed downstream toward the bay, a significant number go upstream past the U.S. Route 41 bridge. Upstream of the bridge, the river narrows considerably. Tidal currents reach upstream of the U.S. Route 41 bridge. At certain tides or in strong winds, navigating a canoe or kayak in this area of the river can be moderately difficult. Even experienced canoeists or kayakers may have trouble maintaining a steady course in this part of the river. Less experienced canoeists or kayakers more often have trouble staying on course and avoiding other boats, the shore, vegetation extending from the water or shoreline, or even the relatively widely spaced supports of the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are about 30 feet apart. Mean high water is at 1.11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The deck of the proposed footbridge would be 9 feet, 6 inches wide from rail to rail and 16 feet wide in total. The proposed footbridge would extend about 180 feet, spanning 84 feet of water from shore to shore. The bridge- ends would each be about 50 feet and would each slope at a rate of 1:12. The proposed footbridge would rest on nine pilings: four in the uplands and five in the submerged bottom. The elevation of the bottom of the footbridge from the water surface, at mean high water, would be 8 feet, 8 inches. The distance between the centers of the pilings would be 14 feet, and each piling would be of a minimum diameter of 8 inches. According to a special permit condition, the pilings would be treated with chromated copper arsenate, as a preservative, but they would be wrapped in impermeable plastic or PVC sleeves so as, in the words of the proposed permit, "to reduce the leaching of deleterious substances from the pilings." The proposed permit requires that the sleeves shall be installed from at least 6 inches below the level of the substrate to at least 1 foot above the seasonal highwater line and shall be maintained over the life of the facility. The proposed permit also requires that the footbridge be limited to pedestrian traffic only, except for wheelchairs. The permit requires the applicant to install concrete-filled steel posts adjacent to the bridge to prevent vehicles from using the bridge. The proposed permit requires that Koreshan grant a conservation easement for the entire riverbank running along both shorelines of Koreshan's two parcels, except for the dock and boat ramp used by the canoe-rental business. The proposed permit also requires Koreshan to plant leather fern or other wetland species on three-foot centers along the river banks along both banks for a distance of 30 feet. The proposed permit states that the project shall comply with all applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation permitting requirements of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents did not raise standing as an affirmative defense. It appears that Petitioners or, in the case of corporate Petitioners, members and officers all live in the area of the Estero River and use the river regularly. For instance, Petitioner Dorothy McNeill resides one mile south of the proposed bridge on a canal leading to the Estero River, which she uses frequently. She is the president and treasurer of Petitioner Estero Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the Estero River in its natural state. Petitioner Ellen W. Peterson resides on Corkscrew Road, 300-400 feet from the proposed footbridge. For 26 years, she has paddled the river several times weekly, usually upstream because it is prettier. She formerly canoed, but now kayaks. The record is devoid of evidence of the water- quality criteria for the Estero River at the time of its designation as an OFW or 1995, which is the year prior to the subject application. Koreshan has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge would not adversely affect the water quality of the Estero River. Although the site of the proposed footbridge is devoid of bottom vegetation and there is no suggestion that this is anything but a natural condition for this part of the riverbottom, there is evidence that the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the water quality in two respects: turbidity caused by the pilings and leaching from the chromated copper arsenate applied to the pilings. The turbidity is probably the greater threat to water quality because it would be a permanent factor commencing with the completion of the installation of the pilings. The leaching of the heavy metals forming the toxic preservative impregnated into the pilings is probable due to two factors: damage to the PVC liner from collisions with inexperienced boaters and high-water conditions that exceed 1 foot over mean high water and, thus, the top of the liner. Both of these factors are exacerbated by flooding, which is addressed below. Koreshan also has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed footbridge is clearly in the public interest under the seven criteria. The proposed footbridge would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare and the property of others through exacerbated flooding. South Lee County experienced serious flooding in 1995. In response, Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District have attempted to improve the capacity of natural flowways, in part by clearing rivers of snags and other impediments to flow, including, in the case of the Imperial River, a bridge. One important experience learned from the 1995 floods was to eliminate, where possible, structures in the river, such as snags and pilings, that collect debris in floodwaters and thereby decrease the drainage capacity of the waterway when drainage capacity is most needed. Longer term, the South Florida Water Management District is considering means by which to redirect stormwater from the Imperial River drainage to the Estero River drainage. The addition of five pilings (more as the river rose) would exacerbate flooding. On this basis alone, Koreshan has failed to provide reasonable assurance. Additionally, though, the HEC II model output offered by Koreshan does not consider flooding based on out-of-banks flows, but only on the basis of roadway flows. In other words, any assurances as to flooding in the design storm are assurances only that U.S. Route 41 will not be flooded, not that the lower surrounding land will not be flooded. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, for the reasons already stated with respect to water quality. Koreshan failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water. The flow of water is addressed above. Navigation is best addressed together with the next criterion: whether the proposed activity would adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Despite the presence of only two public launch sites, boating is popular on the Estero River. Reflective of the population growth of Collier County to the south and the area of Lee County to the north, the number of boaters on the Estero River has grown steadily over the years. The canoe- rental business located on the 8.5-acre parcel rented canoes or kayaks to over 10,000 persons in 1996. Many other persons launched their canoes or kayaks for free from this site and the nearby state park. Lee County businesses derive $800,000,000 annually from tourism with ecotourism a growing component of this industry. The Estero River is an important feature of this industry, and the aquatic preserve at the mouth of the river and the state park just downstream from the proposed footbridge provide substantial protection to the scenic and environmental values that drive recreational interest in the river. It is unnecessary to consider the aesthetic effect of a footbridge spanning one of the more attractive segments of the Estero River. The proposed footbridge and its five pilings effectively divide the river into six segments of no more than 14 feet each. This fact alone diminishes the recreational value of the river for the many canoeists and kayakers who cannot reliably navigate the U.S. Route 41 bridge pilings, which are more than twice as far apart. As to the remaining criteria, the proposed footbridge would be permanent and the condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity is high. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the proposed footbridge would adversely affect the remnants of an historic dock, but it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The mitigation proposed by Koreshan does not address the deficiencies inherent in the proposed activity.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner Council of Civic Associations, Inc., and denying the application of Respondent Koreshan Unity Foundation, Inc., for an environmental resource permit and authorization to obtain an easement for the use of sovereign land. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Malone Vice President and Treasurer Council of Civic Associations, Inc. Post Office Box 919 Estero, Florida 33919-0919 Reginald McNeill Dorothy McNeill, President Estero Conservancy, Inc. 26000 Park Place Estero, Florida 33928 Mark E. Ebelini Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Phyllis Stanley, President 12713-3 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Cathy S. Reiman Cummings & Lockwood Post Office Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Francine M. Ffolkes Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Parties and the Property. The Respondent, HORNE, owns or has options to purchase approximately 24.35 acres of real property at the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 Bypass in Brooksville, Florida. The Petitioner, the ASSOCIATES, owns approximately 67.5 acres of real property to the south and downstream from the HORNE property. The ASSOCIATES' property is presently undeveloped. The HORNE property contains an existing Publix shopping plaza, a mobile home sales office and vacant lands. The Publix plaza was previously permitted by the DISTRICT before it was constructed. The Surface Water Permit Application On August 7, 1992, HORNE submitted its application for surface water permit No. 400317.02. The application sought approval to construct a surface water management system for a proposed new K-Mart store on HORNE's property. On November 3, 1992, the DISTRICT issued notice of final agency action approving issuance of permit No. 400317.02 to HORNE. The day before the original final hearing in this matter scheduled for March 1993, new information from a study called the Peck Sink Watershed Study came to light which rendered the project as then designed unpermittable. This information resulted in the surface water management system being redesigned. On April 1, 1993, the DISTRICT notified all of the parties that the redesigned surface water management met District rule criteria. This resulted in issuance of what became known as the April 1 submittal. On May 12, 1993, in response to concerns raised by the ASSOCIATES at depositions on May 10, 1993, HORNE produced the May 12 submittal and provided it to all parties on that same date. The changes in design reflected on the May 12 submittal related to lowering the pond bottoms one foot below the orifices and changing the contour lines on the outside of Pond 5A. On May 13, 1993, further minor changes were made to the permit materials. Specifically, the changes were: reflecting on the engineering worksheets the lowering of the pond bottoms accomplished on the May 12 submittal, correction of the contour line on the outside of Pond 5A and showing the amount of additional fill into the 100-year floodplain caused by the addition of the contour line to the outside of Pond 5A. In reviewing HORNE's application, the District applied the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications. Compliance with DISTRICT Permitting Criteria Water Quantity The main two areas considered by the DISTRICT in assessing water quantity in a closed basin are: attenuating the peak rate of discharge for the 25 runoff for the 100 The peak rate of runoff for this project for the 25 (2) cubic feet per second (cfs) less in the post-developed condition than in the pre-developed condition, as shown on the April 1 submittal. No changes were made between the April 1 and May 12 or 13 submittals relating to the peak rate of discharge. The difference in the volume of runoff between the pre-developed and post-developed condition during the 100-year storm is being retained on site, as shown on the April 1 submittal. Therefore, DISTRICT rule criteria for the peak rate and volume of runoff were met on the April 1 submittal. Lowering the bottoms of the detention ponds on the May 12 and 13 submittals resulted in additional post 100 system, as redesigned to retain this additional 100-year volume, exceeds the DISTRICT's 100 Floodplain Encroachment Under the DISTRICT's floodplain encroachment standards, any fill within the 100 out an equivalent volume of fill elsewhere on the property. HORNE's application satisfies the DISTRICT's floodplain standards. HORNE is filling 1.59 acre feet of the floodplain and creating 1.75 acre feet of compensation. The floodplain compensation will be above the seasonal high water table, as required by Section 3.2.1.4 of the DISTRICT's Basis of Review. The original, existing seasonal high water table will be lowered as a result of the excavation so that the entire floodplain compensation area will be above the seasonal high water table. Water Quality A wet detention system as proposed by HORNE is an acceptable means under the DISTRICT's rules of treating runoff for water quality purposes. The bottoms of the ponds, as shown on the May 12 submittal, are all at least one foot below the orifice elevations, as required by the Basis of Review. Thus, the project met all relevant DISTRICT water quality requirements as of the May 12 submittal. Operation and Maintenance DISTRICT rules require that reasonable assurances be provided that the surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. HORNE will be the operation and maintenance entity for this surface water management system. The DISTRICT's main concerns at the time of permit review are that the design of the surface water management system not be an exotic design, that the design insure that littoral zones can be established, that the system orifice can be cleaned, that the overall system will be stable and that there is a viable operation and maintenance entity. HORNE's project can be effectively operated and maintained. Remaining District Rule Criteria As stipulated to by the parties that the project will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands and will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D Additionally, the proof establishes that the project will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows will not adversely affect the public health and safety; is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies; will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District; will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in Rule 17 Objections Raised by the ASSOCIATES at the Hearing Pond Slopes and Operation and Maintenance Contrary to the assertion that the pond slopes will not be stable and cannot be effectively operated and maintained, the pond side slopes at this project are going to be constructed out of a heavy clay type of soil. Sodded side slopes of 1:1, as proposed for three of the ponds, can be stabilized and effectively operated and maintained. Although there is no DISTRICT requirement that sodded side slopes be mowed, so on these slopes could, if necessary, be cut. In the event the side slopes were to erode, easy repair is possible. All of the ponds except one side of one pond have areas at least 20 feet wide and slopes no steeper than 4:1 where maintenance can be performed. With regard to the pond that does not have this characteristic, equipment can enter and perform necessary maintenance. Water Quality Treatment Concerns that at least a portion of the bottoms of the ponds need to be below the seasonal high water table and that circulation of the ponds needs to be maximized in order to meet water quality treatment criteria are misplaced since there is no requirement that the pond bottoms be below the seasonal high water table in wet detention systems such as the one at issue in this case. Further, the entire bottoms of the ponds are littoral zone and meet DISTRICT rule requirements that 35 per cent of the pond be littoral zone, concentrated at the outfall. Additionally, the ponds at issue maximize circulation through the location of points of inflow and outflow. Floodplain Mitigation Concerns that volume in the floodplain mitigation area is not available because of problems with the seasonal high water table are also misplaced. Specifically, the floodplain area encroachment requiring mitigation relates to Pond 5A. There is more than enough volume within the area which will be excavated to compensate for the area where the fill will be deposited. The seasonal high water table will be at or below the floodplain mitigation area after the required excavation takes place. Although the seasonal high water table will be lowered where the excavation or cut is made and later raised where the fill is placed, no adverse effects on the water table will result from such lowering and raising of the water table. Volume In Pond 5A Allegations that the May 12 and 13 submittals reflect that Pond 5A has less volume available than the modeling calculations contemplate are incorrect. The changes in the contour lines of Pond 5A on the May 12 and 13 submittals from what was shown on the April 1 submittal occurred on the outside of the pond. The volume on the inside of the pond was not reduced actually increased when the pond bottom was lowered for water quality purposes. In determining how much volume a pond is to have when it is constructed, the computer modeling figures take precedence over the scaled plan drawings. In this case, the computer modeling figures never changed after the April 1 submittal. HORNE submitted a computer model that calculated the volume of Pond 5A. The output data clearly reflects that the top of the bank was 82 feet. Publix's Status as an Existing Site Assertions that the Publix site should have been considered in its pre-developed state since there will be approximately one acre foot of volume of runoff, or possibly less, leaving the site without retention are without validity. The Publix plaza was permitted by the DISTRICT in 1985 and constructed in 1986. The amount of peak flow discharge and overall discharge is currently authorized by a valid MSSW permit. When the DISTRICT reviews a permit application, all existing permitted surface water management systems must be accepted in their present state. There is no authority in the DISTRICT's rules to consider an existing permitted site in its pre Even if the Publix site is considered in its pre project has only .02 of an acre foot more volume of runoff in its post-developed condition than in the pre Storage of 100-Year Volume Allegations that the amount of 100-year volume being retained on site in the ponds has been incorrectly calculated by the DISTRICT and HORNE are also invalid. The DISTRICT's rules require that the difference between the pre- and post-development volume for the 100-year storm be retained on site. In the ponds which are the subject of this proceeding, the 100-year volume is retained in the ponds below the orifice. This volume cannot leave the site through the orifice; it can only leave the site by percolation into the ground or evaporation into the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting HORNE's Application for Surface Water Management Permit No. 400317.02. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 25th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties Proposed findings submitted by Petitioners (Petitioner's proposed findings begin at paragraph number 13.) 13.-19. Accepted. 20.-30. Rejected, unnecessary. 31.-44. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 45.-47. Accepted. 48.-77. Rejected, subordinate to hearing officer findings. 78.-79. Rejected, recitation of documents. 80.-84. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 85.-88. Rejected, unnecessary. 89.-93. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 94.-95. Rejected, unnecessary. 96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 99.-100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-126. Rejected, subordinate. 127. Accepted. 128.-129. Rejected, unnecessary. 130.-135. Rejected, argument. 136.-144. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondents Joint Proposed Findings. 1.-56. Accepted, though not verbatim. 58.-59. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Smolker, Esquire Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn 2700 Landmark Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Rodney S. Fields, Jr., Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Existing Conditions Between 1952 and 1957 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Florida Central and Southern Flood Control District (the forerunner of SFWMD) constructed a chain of levees, L-1, L-2, L-3 and later L-4 in eastern Hendry County, Florida. These levees which begin approximately 10 miles to the southwest of Lake Okeechobee run first east, then south and then east again for a distance of approximately 38 miles. The purpose of these levees is to shield the land5/ to the east of them from the natural sheet flow of water which comes from the west during the area's rainy season. The EAA which is protected from natural flooding consist of rich muck soils which have been successfully exploited for years by sugar cane farming. The present levees were created by excavating a "borrow" canal parallel to the southern and western sides of L-1, 2, 3 and 4. The borrow canal is no larger than was required to provide sufficient material for construction of the levees; nevertheless, the canal has a considerable water carrying capacity in the amount of 1,260 CFS 6/ at peak flow. The canal is a navigable fresh water of the state. It interconnects into other navigable canals which terminate in either Lake Okeechobee or the Miami River. The water carried by the borrow canal flows south and discharges into the Miami canal via either a pumping station designated S-8, or via the borrow canal next to L-28.7/ The water which enters the Miami canal ultimately travels to canal C-60 and then into the section of WCA-3 south of Alligator Alley (State Road 84). Flooding The rain water which once moved from west to east directly across the eastern portion of Hendry County, Florida into the EAA is now interdicted by L- 1, 2 and 3. As a result it ponds in the corner of the intersection of L-1 and L-2 (known in these proceedings as the L-1 angle). The area flooded is grass land used by Hendry County ranchers for the open grazing of beef cattle. Some of the pasture is improved, that is fertilized, but the majority of the area is unimproved range. During flood times the ranchers move their cattle to alternative pastures either to the north or to the west. The deepest flooding, when it occurs, is immediately next to the levees in the L-1 angle. The flooding has been known to reach depths as great as 10 feet and to extend westward for several miles. Because the land to the west of the L-1 angle is higher, the depth of the flooding decreases in a westerly direction. The duration of the ponding immediately in the L-1 angle has been as long as 80 days after a prolonged and heavy rainfall event. This flooding occurs despite the capacity of the borrow canal to remove 0.18 inch of flood water per day from the inundated area. When there is flooding in the L-1 angle there is also high water In the northeast corner of WCA-3A where some of the water from the borrow canal is presently discharged. During a dry season the land immediately adjacent to the present borrow canal suffers overdraining due to seepage of ground water into the canal and its resulting evaporation or conveyance south. Water Conservation Area 3A is part of a series of conservation areas established as their name implies to conserve water. Extending over portions of several South Florida counties including Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, they provide the recharge source for the Biscayne Aquifer and other aquifers which are the water supply for metropolitan South Florida. The water conservation areas are also wildlife refuges and provide natural habitats for numerous South Florida animals such as deer, alligator, and wading birds. Description of Project The Hendry County plan as described by the Corps in General Design Memorandum No. 2, 8/ envisions the construction of a flood control canal, C- 139, with two water flow control structures, S-239 and S-243. To create C-139, the Corps plans to further excavate the existing borrow canal next to L-2, L-3 and L-4 for a total distance of 37 miles. See Illustration I.* This excavation will result in the removal of 5.2 million cubic yards of earth and limestone. Some of the resulting spoil will be used to create a levee along the west side of C-139. Most of the excavation will be done by draglines on the canal banks. Upon its completion C-139 will be an immense water conveyance. At its northern end the canal will be only five feet across the bottom with a depth of 10.6 feet, but by the time the canal reaches WCA-3A it will have enlarged to a bottom width of 80 feet across and a depth of 19.5 feet. Its peak design capacity is 3,000 CFS. That is more than twice the present capacity of the existing borrow canal. Downstream from S-239 C-139 turns south to be designated C-139(S) and to gradually become increasingly shallower. This will cause a discharge pattern designed to create a sheet flow across WCA-3A. Benefits, Future Land Use It appears that when levees L-1, 2 and 3 were constructed the Corps failed to fully consider the adverse effect which would result from the impoundment of water by the new levees. According to the General Design Memorandum, Levees 1, 2, 3 and 4 were constructed in the mid 1950s to prevent flood waters originating on the then sparsely developed lands westward of the levees from contri- buting to flooding on the rich agricultural lands lying to the east of the levees. The original borrow canals were sized based on materials needed for the levee construction. The sparse economic development of the lands to the west precluded increasing the con- veyance capacity of these canals to prevent flooding on those lands. Construction of the levees and the subsequent increased de- velopment over the drainage area have aggra- vated flooding problems on the lands. Water stands on some of the land during practically the entire wet season virtually every year. As the landowners developed the land, they became increasingly vociferous about con- struction of works to alleviate the flooding for which they contend is project-induced. There is merit in their contention in that the adjacent project works adversely affected both depth and duration of flooding in the area west of Levees 1, 2 and 3. (Emphasis added) The facts presented at the instant final hearing are somewhat to the contrary, in that there was no showing of significant subsequent development west of the levees after their construction. For many decades vast family ranches have raised cattle on the mentioned lands as they continue to do today. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to now provide flood control to an approximately 261 square mile drainage basin west of the flood-causing levees.9/ With a design capacity of 3,000 CFS, C-139 can handle twice the water which drains through the present borrow canal. By way of comparison the present canal has a drainage capacity of .18 inches per day from the flooded area during a ten-year flood,10/ while C-139 has the capacity to drain .43 inches per day. This heightened discharge rate will cause land in the L-1 angle to flood less, and once flooded, to be underwater for a shorter period of time. For instance, an area which during a ten-year storm might have been submerged for 40 days prior to the construction of the project Is estimated to have an inundation period of only 10 days upon the project's completion. The significance of the reduced flooding to the landowners in the flooded area is difficult to gauge from the evidence. Because an intensification of land use would result in a lowering in the quality of the water which runs off the land and into C-139 and thence into the environmentally sensitive water conservation area,11/ the landowners supporting the project were understandably reluctant to testify that the project will allow them to use their land for more than continued cattle grazing. The testimony of Mr. Joe Hillard, a partner in Hillard Bros. of Florida, Inc., one of the larger ranches is illustrative: Q If this project, the flood control portion, were built, would your company change any of its land uses on this land that you described? A No, sir, not at all. Not with what I understand is going to be done with the project I wouldn't change anything. In response to the Hearing Officer's later inquiry, Mr. Hillard explained that the project would allow pasture land to be used for twelve months per year as opposed to the current nine months per year during a flood season. He does not anticipate grazing any more head per acre after the project. This evidence contrasted with the assumptions made by the Corps in that part of the General Design Memorandum which discusses the cost-benefit ratio of the project. The Memorandum states at p. 52: As noted previously, the existing activity within the area is predominately agricultural with major emphasis in beef cattle production. Local landowners and managers were asked to indicate the production changes they expected to make with the reduced flood hazards available under with (sic) project condi- tions. These expectations were prepared as a land use map with the basic control matrix. For the most part, these changes in land use represented more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. In some cases, existing beef pastures were expected to be replaced with sugarcane, truck crops, and citrus production. The majority of the changes were an upgrading of existing beef cattle operations. Such upgrading was affected (sic) by planting the more pro- ductive types of pasture such as clover and grass combinations, and the application of additional fertilizers and supplemental water. These expectations were assumed to exist under favorable cultivation conditions. Because of the nature of soil conditions in the project drainage basin, sandy with poor nutrient and water retention ability, it is unlikely that land use in the 261 square mile drainage basin will change significantly. As predicted by Mr. Hillard, it is likely that all the project would do is allow more grazing time on land which is now periodically flooded. Since it is not the function of this proceeding to inquire into whether the purported cost- benefit ratio of the project is accurate, no findings will be made concerning that issue. Project Permitting History The Hendry County portion of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project for flood control west of levees 1, 2 and 3 was authorized by the Congress of the United States in the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965. The Army Corps of Engineers is the actual builder of the project, but SFWMD is the local sponsor and is the Corps' agent in applying for the necessary permits from DER. The Department as the permitting agency is in a curious position here. Its Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) was responsible for the State Public Works Program through which Florida requested Congress to fund the Hendry County Project. Mr. Charles Littlejohn who was head of the Bureau in 1976 had the responsibility of lobbying in Washington for funding of the project. The DER through its Bureau of Permitting is now asked to pass on the validity of a project which the BWR has so vigorously promoted. The Department's uncomfortable posture was recognized by its permitting staff. In a memorandum dated March 9, 1979 to Mr. E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Mr. Forrest Fields at DER wrote: I told Mr. Brown, as I told you yesterday that I felt rather awkward in reviewing for permitting a project which the agency had endorsed for the public works list." Every year projects being sponsored for federal approval are reviewed by a process In the Division of State Planning called the A-95 Clearinghouse.12/ The Hendry County Project had a checkered history there. Serious objections concerning the environmental impact of the project were raised; nevertheless, DER through the BWR continued to seek and was successful in obtaining federal funding. On November 15, 1978, SFWMD filed an application with DER for the requisite permits to begin construction. During the course of DER's review of the project several issues arose between the parties. Among them were: Whether local approval pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes would be required? Would an exception from dissolved oxygen (DO) standards be necessary? Whether local water quality standards would apply if they were stricter than state standards? Local Approval As early as February 19, 1979, DER noted that plans submitted by the applicant proposed the placement of fill in waters of the state. In a letter to Mr. Lee M. Brown of SFWMD, Mr. Forrest Fields, the DER permit processor, observed: Second, on page 2/11 of your drawings, you indicated that approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material will be placed water- ward of ordinary mean high water. I pre- sume that this fill is associated with structures S-243 and S-239. Pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, approval of this filling by resolution of the local government is required. To do this I will, upon receipt of the Department of Environ- mental Regulation field report, summarize and send this to the Hendry County Commission. The Commission will have to consider this report, and, by vote, adopt a resolution approving the project. I will send you a sample resolution. The requirement of local approval was reiterated numerous times. In March, 1979, Mr. Fields sent a staff report of a biological survey of the project to the Hendry County Commission for consideration in their approval of the project. During a meeting on March 21, 1979 in the DER Secretary's office representatives of SFWMD were told that local approval would be required. On April 10, 1979 the County Commissioners of Hendry County gave their approval to the project. In correspondence to Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society, Secretary Jacob D. Varn noted that the permit applications were still incomplete because local approval for filling associated with the two water control structures had not yet been received by DER. During a public meeting held on May 22, 1979, the County Commissioners of Broward County, after three and one-half hours of testimony, voted 6-0 against approving the project as it related to fill in Broward County. Subsequent to that vote the Corps and SFWMD asserted that local approval by Broward County was not required. In response to this assertion Mr. Charles Littlejohn, on behalf of the Secretary, requested a legal opinion from DER's General Counsel. On October 30, 1979, General Counsel's Legal Opinion 79- 72 concluded that the Department could assert Chapter 253 jurisdiction over the project and therefore "local approval" is a statutory requirement for its permitting. On March 17, 1980 Mrs. Evelyn Jackman of Jackman and Sons, Inc., one of the major ranchers in the project drainage basin, wrote to Governor Graham to urge the rapid approval of the project. Her correspondence was forwarded to DER for an appropriate response. Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel as Assistant Secretary noted in her reply on April 3, 1980 that: Pursuant to Section 253.124(3), Florida Statutes approval must be obtained from the County Commissioners before we can complete the processing of a permitting application for fill in navigable waters. Approval has not been received from Broward County and there Is fill proposed for the Broward County portion of the project. Ms. Tschinkel did, however, assure Mrs. Jackman that: The Department of Environmental Regulation is sympathetic to the problems outlined in your letter, and for that reason the Depart- ment has made this project part of its public works package given each year to Congress. We still support this as a public works pro- ject and for that reason we are attempting to work out the permitting problems as ex- peditiously as possible. Shortly after Ms. Tschinkel's letter was sent there was another meeting in the Secretary's office to discuss the project. Mr. Lotspeich's interoffice memorandum outlines the Department's new position as it related to local approval. In addition, the issue of what constituted fill pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for local approval purposes was discussed. Helen Setchfield also partici- pated in this discussion. After Helen and I looked more closely at the project, it appeared that only a concrete structure (S-239) was to be placed waterward of OHW.13/ We both agreed that in past permitting practices we had not required local approval for the construction of structures waterward of OHW, but only when fill to extend existing lands or create new lands was involved. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the fill and structure relative to OHW and sheet 2 of 11 clearly indicates that fill will be placed "below MHW" Forrest must have assumed that local approval would be required if the canal was determined to be under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdic- tion. GCO-79-72 from Randie Denker indicated that the Department can assert Chapter 253, Florida Statutes jurisdiction in the canals and therefore local approval would be required. It would appear that there was really no clear understanding as to what the "fill" consisted of in the case of structure 239. Conversation with Mr. Walker [counsel for SFWMD] and Messrs. Parsons [counsel for Alico and other landowners] and Davis [SFWMD] indicated that there was no intention to place fill in the canal waterward of OHW and that the concrete structure would span the entire canal width. Since the application drawings did not clearly show the relation of the structure and fill re- lative to existing OHW, Mr. Walker said he would provide new drawings which would show this. Helen and I discussed the situation and we scheduled an appointment to talk the problem over the (sic) Terry Cole. It was agreed at the meeting that simultaneous "intent" letters would be sent on May 5, 1980 from permitting and the exception review people. May 16, 1980 DER entered into a Stipulation with SFWMD which states in its entirety: The SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION for purposes of this proceeding hereby stipulate and agree that: The DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA- TION has jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to require permits autho- rizing construction and other activities described in the application which is the subject of this proceeding. None of the activities or construction, including the construction of the proposed Spillway S-239, as described in the appli- cation which is the subject of this pro- ceeding, constitute construction of islands or an addition to or extension of existing lands and islands so that approval of local governments as described in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, is not required. This Stipulation is executed by counsel for each party on the date shown. On May 20, 1980 coordinated letters of intent to grant permits for the construction of the project were issued. Pursuant to the Stipulation local approval was no longer being required by DER. Alternative Site Specific Criteria After receipt of SFWMD's permit application for the construction of C- 139 and associated structures, DIR noted that it did not have adequate data on dissolved oxygen. In correspondence dated March 9, 1979, Mr. Forrest Fields said: Fourth, the dissolved oxygen data are not adequate. The available data were col- lected during daylight, only, and these data include occasional concentrations of less than 4.0 mg/l. In an effort to re- solve these deficiencies so that reasonable assurances may be provided, you, Walt Dineen, and I will discuss the South Florida Water Management District data on Thursday, March 15. The results of the March 15, 1979 meeting were memorialized by Mr. Fields in a file memorandum dated March 19, 1979. The memorandum stated in pertinent part that: On March 15, 1979, Mr. Lee Brown, Mr. Walt Dineen, and Mr. Fred Davis, from SFWMD, called to discuss the staff's request for "reasonable assurance" re. the Department's water quality standards. Mr. Davis, the applicant's chief chemist, said that, throughout the Everglades, in both canals and conservation areas, the water quality standards for both conductivity and dis- solved oxygen are frequently violated. He asserted that this is typical of the area. He believes that these data represent natural background. The situation regarding affirmative, reasonable assurance appears to be this: widespread and frequent observations of DO data which are less than the minimum for Class III waters commonly occur within the existing L-1, L-2, L-3 canals. The increase in depth associated with C-139 is predicted to exacerbate existing stress- es on the DO regime.... However, the SFWMD's response does not constitute reasonable assurance re. other Class III standards. The District's DO and conductivity data may conceivably supply assurances that these standards will be violated in C-139. (Whether background DO and conductivity violate the standards may become important.) The District appears to have two alternatives: 1) attack the Class III standard; 2) apply for variances for, at least, DO and conductivity. A follow-up meeting was held on March 21, 1979. Again, in a file memorandum dated March 28, 1979 Mr. Fields wrote: Consideration of reasonable assurance began at the March 15, 1979, conversation among Messrs. Brown, Davis and Fields. According to the SFWMD, widespread and frequent violations of the Class III water quality standard for dissolved oxygen, as contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., occur throughout the Everglades, in the canals, agriculture areas, Lake Okeechobee, and the conservation areas. The existing borrow canals follow this pattern. The SFWMD alleges that this condition is natural back- ground. They agree that it is probable that any existing DO stresses exist in the borrow canal will be exacerbated in the proposed C-139. However, both the former and present editions of Chapter 17-3 F.A.C. allow for exceptions for natural background. The SFWMD will review these rules to determine which regulatory approach will be taken. In addition, the SFWMD will supply to DER data for the "benchmark" station in the L-28 canal and at Everglades National Park to demonstrate lower back- ground concentrations of DO. Furthermore, the SFWMD will apply, per Ch. 403.087, F.S., for a temporary operating permit for the completed structure. Conditions governing private connections and incor- porating BMPs may be included in the TOP. On April 5, 1979, SFWMD submitted in support of its original permit application a document called Evaluation of Natural Background Dissolved Oxygen in Conservation Area 3-A, South Florida. This evaluation received unfavorable reviews at. DER. Landon P. Ross, chief biologist, wrote in an April 9, 1979 memo that: I have reviewed the data provided by SFWMD regarding background DOs in the Everglades area and have the following comments: Indication that DOs are not harmful to local organisms are, in a legal sense, irrelevant to the question. The data provided give evidence of the occurrence of low DOs in the area. Since the measured low DOs seem to be from artificial drainage channels, they can hardly be supposed to be "natural". The measures that SFWMD provided, however, do not seem too different from the values that I would expect to find in a natural swamp habitat. The proposed "standard" cannot be logically derived from the DO measurements provided. This Evaluation was later submitted in support of first Petition for Exception noted infra. In his review of the data Mr. Fred Bartleson at DER wrote:14/ The data submitted by the South Florida Water Management District does not justify the requested exception for dissolved oxy- gen criteria for the Hendry County Project. The petition alleges that D.O. concentra- tions lower than 1.0 mg/l occur in the re- ceiving waters of Conservation Area 3A. However, the data submitted from that area indicate a minimum value of 2.3 mg/l. The value cited in the petition of less than 1.0 mg/l was recorded in the L-3 borrow canal adjacent to the conservation area. This canal drains an agricultural area. Similar data from the L-28 east canal which is less affected by cultural activity depicts minimum D.O. values between 3 - 2 mg/l. The low D.O. values found naturally in fresh- water wetlands during the warmer months ob- viously result in stress to the biota. The introduction of larger quantities of water from the proposed Hendry County Project, which is anticipated to have lower D.O. values as well as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff, could adversely affect the ecosystem. The proposed exception allowing discharge of water with not less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours in any 24-hour period is arbitrary and not supported by data. It may well be that an exception could be granted for some lowering of the D.O. criteria with time constraints. However, more defini- tive and conclusive data are required to in- sure that this action would not cause adverse effects. The burden of supplying this infor- mation should rest with the petitioner. His views were supported by Messrs. Kevin Edwards, Vernon Myers, and G. J. Thabaraj. Mr. Edwards also noted the difference in DO readings between the WCA- 3A and the borrow canals. SFWMD filed a Petition for an Exception on July 23, 1979. The Petition alleged that the receiving waters of the proposed discharge are located in WCA-3A and that due to natural causes that portion of WCA-3A which will receive the discharge does not meet the state standards for DO as set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. The DO levels of the proposed discharge are alleged to be similar to those levels already present in the water conservation area. In response to the Petition DER requested more information by a letter from Stephen Fox dated August 29, 1979. The letter requested: Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of natural causes, that is, there is an absence of man-induced alteration; or Data which supports the contention that the condition of the waters is the re- sult of man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated with technology or management practices. Data which supports the contention that the biota have not been adversely af- fected or will not be affected adversely. The data submitted with the application did not address the possibility that the low dis- solved oxygen levels may be caused by the practice of pumping water off the agriculture areas during the summer wet season. Compari- son with similar subtropical, undisturbed aquatic environment should be made. The dis- solved oxygen data should be compared with pumping schedules and with dissolved oxygen values of water pumped. Comprehensive water- shed and land use data is needed for a thorough review. Further, the data submitted did not support the contention in the petition of a corre- lation between C.A. 3A and canals L-3 and L-28. Also, the contention that in C.A. 3A dis- solved oxygen concentrations were below 1.0 mg/l were recorded was unsupported. The data array was not adequate in terms of distri- bution and frequency of sampling, to demon- strate that the dissolved oxygen regime ap- proaches the proposed alternative criteria. On October 2, 1979, E. D. Vergara summarized the status of the SFWMD application for the DER Secretary, Jacob D. Varn. His memorandum with respect to dissolved oxygen states: ... (permits) originally requested under old 17-3 rules, it was found quality assurances could not be made due to a naturally occurring condition of low DO. The Department requested information sup- portive of the low DO background, but due to differences in opinions among the biologists, the district elected to re- quest an exception under the provisions of the new 17-3 rule instead. Additional information has now been requested by the Department to support the request for an exception, and the District is cur- rently putting this together. It is the general feeling that with this additional data, granting the exception should be possible. SFWMD responded to Mr. Fox's letter above by submitting in the Spring of 1980, an Amended Petition for Exception from Criteria. In its Amended Petition the District abandoned the comparison, found in the original petition, of the proposed discharged waters' dissolved oxygen levels to the levels found in the water conservation district. Instead the District concentrated on a comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed discharge waters to the levels in the relatively clean canals in the South Florida area, specifically the L-28 canal system. The District proposed that as an alternative to Class III standards the following criterion be established: During any 24-hour cycle the dissolved oxygen concentration within the photic zone shall exceed 1.0 mg/l, except during the extreme low point when values shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for more than two consecutive hours. (Emphasis added) Accompanying SFWMD's Amended Petition was a report (Supporting Report) dated February, 1980, which provided a voluminous compilation of data to justify the alternative standard proposed.15/ On April 8, 1980, Ms. Helen Setchfield sent a memorandum to DER staff requesting that they review the Amended Petition and report back to her within five days. Also on April 8, 1980, after a meeting attended by both SFWMD representatives and DER representatives, it was decided that DER would issue coordinated letters of intent on May 5, 1980 for both the exception and the dredge and fill applications. In spite of the decision to issue letters of intent, DER permitting staff were not satisfied with the concept that ban-made canals were "natural" background or that the proposed DO standard was reasonable. On April 16, 1980, Rick Lotspeich wrote to Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, that: I have reviewed the referenced "request for exception" and it appears that the petition and supporting report are suf- ficiently complete to allow evaluation of the merits of the request. It would appear that the proposed dis- solved oxygen standard of 2.0 mg/l over 24 hours and 1.0 mg/l "during the extreme low point" for not more than two hours, is excessively low and not warranted by the data presented. A review of the data from figures 4 and 5 generally indicate that the following standard would be appropriate: Dissolved Oxygen: The concentration should not average less than 4.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 mg/l except during the months of June--September, when the concentra- tion shall not average less than 3.0 mg/l in a 24-hour period and never less than 1.0 mg/l. Later, after having received comments from Rick Cantrell and Bob Siciler, Mr. Lotspeich wrote to Ms. Walker the following: My recollection from reading the request for exception was that SFWMD had indeed recognized the fact that the canals and their design had contributed to the de- pressed DO values of the water in them. Pursuant to Subsection 17-3.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, there may be a consideration for "man-induced causes which cannot be controlled or abated I am in full agreement with Cantrell and Siciler's discussion of the adverse impacts that canals in general, and the specific canal involved in this project, have on water quality and biological resources. However, I disagree with the conclusions that they reached. Clearly, there are extenuating circumstances involved in this case which set it apart from other dredge and fill cases. In light of these circum- stances, the fact that the depressed DO levels have resulted from man-induced causes which cannot be controlled, and Cantrell and Siciler's own statement that approval of this project has little probability of worsening the existing water quality of L-2, L-3 and WCA-3, I would recommend that the exception be granted. However, the alternate DO standard which I recommended in my previous memo is still applicable. (Emphases added. The "extenuating circum- stances" were never explained.) Subsequently, on May 20, 1980, the Department issued a coordinated letter of intent to grant an exception but for the standard proposed by Mr. Lotspeich, not that requested by the Water Management District. Dissolved Oxygen and Exception Section 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code requires that discharges into fresh waters of the state must exhibit dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.04 mg/l or more. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above that level must be maintained. Dissolved oxygen in certain concentrations is required for aquatic life. The amount of oxygen contained in water is subject to numerous variables, many of which are interrelated. They include: amount of sunlight entering the water, ability of the water to transmit light, photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants, water temperature, mechanical oxygenation, mixing with other water which may have either a higher or lower dissolved oxygen content, depth of water, rate of oxygen consumption by resident biota, and time of day. It is undisputed that during certain seasons and times of day the water in the existing borrow canal does not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard. Readings as low as 0.9 mg/l have been obtained there. These low readings usually occur in the months of heavy rainfall, primarily July through September. See the data on Figure 4 of SFWMD's Supporting Report. Similar, though not so low measurements have been obtained in neighboring man-made canals such as L-28. L-28 has been used by water quality experts as a "benchmark" for canal water quality since it does not receive large amounts of runoff from agricultural areas where pollutants such as fertilizers are used. There are numerous times during a given year that the dissolved oxygen levels in L-28 are below the 5.0 mg/l state standard. It is also possible to find at least two locations in WCA-3A wetlands where dissolved oxygen readings are below Class III standards. At Gauge 3-2 in the northwest corner of WCA-3A near where the project would discharge, dissolved oxygen levels have varied from 2.3 mg/l to 10.8 mg/l; however, the mean value for the measured levels has been 5.5 mg/l as reported on Table 2 of the Supporting Report.16/ Unfortunately, the data regarding dissolved oxygen concentrations in the proposed discharge area are scant. This paucity was recognized by the Supporting Report which states at page 6: "No systematic study of the dissolved oxygen conditions or requirements for fresh water wetlands in general, or WCA-3A in particular, have yet been conducted." Despite the limited data on WCA-3A, certain comparisons between DO readings in it and in the borrow canal which would discharge into the area can be made. Readings taken at Gauge 3-2 do not sink to levels as low as those found in L-3. Compare Figure 4 of the Report to Table 2. The minimum readings taken in L-3 were during those periods of greatest discharge. If the discharge from the existing borrow canal were presently sent into the area of Gauge 3-2 during months of peak discharge, the waters entering WCA-3A would have a lower dissolved oxygen concentration than would exist naturally in the area. It is not surprising that water in the borrow canal exhibits unusually low dissolved oxygen levels. The levee sides limit reaeration which could occur due to wind movement. The surface-to-volume ratio is also unfavorable. Much oxygenation occurs at the interface between the water and surrounding air, but because the canal is relatively deep compared to its surface area, the proportion of water coming into direct contact with the air is low.17/ The depth of the photic zone, i.e., the section of water penetrated by light, is limited due to the naturally high color of canal water. Construction of C-139 will add somewhat to a lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the entire canal water column. To increase its conveyance capacity, the existing borrow canal will be deepened significantly, particularly in its southern reaches. This deepening will result in a lowering of the ratio between the area of water surface to the depth of the canal. No mathematical data were presented by which the lowered ratio can be computed; however, an examination of Plates A-24 and A- 25 of the General Design Memorandum indicates that completed C-139 will contain a higher ratio of water below the photic zone than is presently contained in the borrow canal.18/ This is true only during those times when the canal is relatively full of water. As the canal level drops during a drought the photic zone will approach the canal bottom in the shallower sections. Both SFWMD and DER have proposed site specific DO alternative standards. These have been set out in the foregoing discussion of the permitting history. There is a significant difference between the proposals. SFWMD's proposal includes only the waters contained in the photic zone. It fails to recognize that during times of discharge, the waters of C-139 which are deposited in WCA-3A will not be only those of the photic zone, but will come from the entire water column of the canal. While SFWMD's standard might be acceptable for C-139 when it is in a no discharge state, the standard is completely unacceptable when the canal is discharging. Neither the standard proposed by DER nor SFWMD recognizes the difference between the dissolved oxygen regime which can be predicted for C-139 and that presently existing in WCA-3A. The data submitted would justify an exception from the present 5.0 mg/l Class III standard. There are certainly times when both the water existing in relatively unpolluted canals and in the water conservation area contain less than the present minimal content of dissolved oxygen. When C-139 is not discharging an exception, which would have a range now exhibited by the existing borrow canal, would be justified for the new canal. Sufficient data was not presented here to suggest the precise figures for such an exception. The information given for L-3 for instance, is compiled from samples taken only once during a given day. The water depth of the sample is not given. Accurate data would account for the diel variation and the effect of water depth on each sample. Without data which gives a daily average, it is impossible to determine if the water either standing in, or discharging from C- 139 will meet any proposed alternative criterion. For the same reason the data obtained for the present DO concentrations in WCA-3A is incomplete for establishing appropriate levels for discharge waters entering that area. The establishment of site specific alternative criteria must await the submission of more complete dissolved oxygen readings from the applicant. One of the elements in considering whether to grant an exception to established standards is whether the existing biota have adapted to the background DO levels. The proof here shows that the fish and other biota now living in the borrow canal either tolerate or have adapted to the present low DO regime there. It has also been proven that the biota in WCA-3A are tolerant of the naturally occurring low DO levels in that area. It was not shown how they would respond to a massive influx of low DO water when C-139 would be discharging. Hydroperiod in WCA-3A The northwest corner of WCA-3A, where C-139 and C-139(S) will discharge, has a higher ground elevation than that of the southern portion of the water conservation area. The highest elevation in the extreme northwest corner is approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (MSL). It tapers down to approximately ten feet MSL at the southern boundary of WCA-3A. The project is designed to facilitate the sheet flow of discharge water from the northwest area towards the southeast with an ultimate destination being flow into the Miami canal. The construction of the Miami canal, C-123, which runs on a northwest- southeast diagonal across the area, causes overdrainage of the northwest section. The borrow canal along Alligator Alley also contributes to excess runoff. This overdrainage has shortened the hydroperiod in the northwest corner from approximately 9 to 10 months to approximately 5 to 7 months. "Hydroperiod" is the span of time during which land is inundated by ponded water. The shorten hydroperiod has a profoundly destructive impact on the natural environment. The muck soil when not submerged oxidizes at an accelerated rate. At the present time the rate of oxidation in the northwest corner is more rapid than the replacement rate. Since the natural hydroperiod has been altered muck fires have been more severe and frequent. These fires destroy existing tree islands which dot the Prior to 1974 WCA-3A received discharges from the waters of the L-1, 2 and 3 borrow canal. The outlet of the canal at L-4 was determined to be inadequate for flood control purposes in the L-1 angle. To increase the discharge rate of the borrow canal culverts G-88 and G-89 were installed at the L-3/L-4 intersection in October of 1974. G-89 directs part of the flow from the L-3 canal into canal L-28 west, and then into pumping station 5-140 and into C- 60 (parallel to Alligator Alley). G-88 directs another part of the flow from the L-3 canal into the L-4 borrow canal and then into S-8 where it is pumped into the Miami canal. Rather than being allowed to flow in a shallow sheet across the water conservation area, the direct water flow is now sent southeast in canals for ultimate discharge outside the area. This waste would be eliminated by the proposal to have C-139 discharge into WCA-3A via C-139(S). There is no dispute that more water is needed annually in the northwest corner of the water conservation area. What is at issue here is the timing of placing additional water there. Generally when there is flooding in the L-1 angle and C-139 would be discharging at its maximum rate there is already flooding in WCA-3A. Rainstorm events are somewhat regional and cover both areas. The applicant estimates that if the volume of water discharged by C-139 in a two-week period were to be instantaneously spread over the northwest corner of WCA-3A 20/ it would raise the water stage by 0.4 feet. This would occur during a one in ten year storm. At that time the wildlife in the water conservation area would already be stressed by high water levels. A 0.4 foot increase in stage could kill deer and other terrestrial animals and destroy alligator nests, but it also could benefit the more aquatic animals. The result of this increase cannot be accurately predicted on the data supplied by the applicant.21/ While expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant were willing to express an opinion that the influx of drainage water from C-139 would be beneficial, the opinions were simplistically based on the unsupported assumption that because WCA-3A currently suffers from overdrainage, any additional water at any time would be beneficial. It is possible that those opinions were based on studies conducted which prove that a discharge of water such as will come from C-139 may create a beneficial increase in the marsh hydroperiod. Unfortunately, no evidence of the existence of such studies is in this record. The applicant's expert witnesses' opinions are therefore given little weight. In the present situation WCA-3A receives some water from the borrow canal during the dry season when additional water is most beneficial. At the expense of overdraining the land west of the borrow canal, ground water seepage now enters the canal and travels south through L-1, 2 and 3. After the construction of S-239, designed to prevent overdrainage, any possible flow into WCA-3A during dry periods will be cut off. No evidence was presented on what quantity of water WCA-3A will lose during a dry season due to S-239. Also the record does not reflect what effect that reduction will have on biota in the water conservation area. S-239 and Fill When the level of water in the borrow canal drops below the nearby water table, there is groundwater seepage laterally into the canal. If C-139 were to be constructed without any water control devices, it would exacerbate the overdrainage because it will be a far more efficient conveyance than is the borrow canal. S-239 has been designed to prevent this overdrainage. The structure will be located in Broward County. On May 22, 1979 the County declined to give its approval of the use of any fill, as the term is used in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, for the construction of this project in Broward County. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not maintained a consistent unwritten policy on what is "fill" in navigable waters of the state.22/ Testimony from past and present Department employees indicated that at times a "use" concept was employed to determine what was fill. If additional dry land were created which would be used for commercial purposes, then the newly created land was called fill which required local approval. At other times use was unimportant. The test was whether or not the result of the additional material would be moving the point, at which the high water mark intersected the land, in a waterward direction. It is found that what constituted fill in past permit cases depended upon the personal interpretation of each Department employee. S-239 as proposed is a massive structure which will cost 1.32 million dollars 23/ to build. It will contain 11,000 cubic yards of fill and backfill; 530 cubic yards of 1' by 1' pieces of stone rip-rap; 1,230 cubic yards of concrete and 647,000 pounds of cement. 153,800 pounds of reinforcing steel will be required. The structure will be over 50 feet high and will span C-139 where it is 60 feet wide. Each of the two vertical lift gates which control the water flow will be 27 feet wide. See Illustration II.* In between them will be a concrete pier three feet wide and approximately 38 feet long. The cement bottom of the structure will rise from an elevation of 8.0 feet MSL to a crest of 3.3 feet MSL for a total height of 11.3 feet. In order to allow service vehicles to pass across the canal a bridge 13 feet wide will span from one bank to the other. This bridge will support large trucks. The stone protection provided for in the plans consists of 1 foot square pieces of rip-rap to be placed 40 feet immediately upstream from the control gates and 30 feet immediately downstream of the gates. The purpose of this protection is to prevent erosion of the canal bottom and sides where the water flows by at a relatively high velocity. The majority of rip-rap will be placed below the ordinary high water mark. Local Water Quality Standards The issue of local water quality standards arose late in the permitting process. DER had already issued two letters of intent to SFWMD before the Department gave consideration to standards promulgated by Broward County. It appears from the record that the Broward County standards were formally brought to DER's attention through the County's Petition for Formal Hearing filed on June 3, 1980. On June 26, 1980, DER issued an amended letter of intent which said: This letter is an amendment of the letter of intent to issue signed by the Department on May 20, 1980. In that letter, the Depart- ment stated: "This intent to issue is contin- gent upon the applicant being granted an exception from the criteria for dis- solved oxygen, for Class III waters, pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code." The preceding paragraph is hereby amended to include a provision that the applicant must obtain relief from the dissolved oxygen stan- dards that appear in Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, through a variance or other legal mechanism, in addition to the exception from state standards for dissolved oxygen. Section 27-5.072(19), Broward County Code, states that DO is to have a "daily average not less than 5 mg/l; single reading never less than 4 mg/l. The May 20, 1980, letter also contained a paragraph that read: "However, should the Department grant an exception from the dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue the permit." This paragraph is hereby stricken and the following paragraph substituted: "If the Department grants an exception from the State dissolved oxygen criteria pursuant to Section 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Division intends to issue a conditional permit which will only become valid upon the granting of relief by Broward County from its existing local standards for dissolved oxygen." The Department is taking this position upon consideration of Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department to en- force all stricter or more stringent rules, regulations or orders in the jurisdiction where they apply. It is the Department's position that it is without discretion to grant relief from Broward County's local standard for dis- solved oxygen. By its Petition the County alleged that it has an approved local pollution control program and that the proposed project will violate its local standards for dissolved oxygen and nutrients found in Sections 27-117(b)(9) and 27-117(11) of the Broward County Code.24/ Neither SFWMD nor the Corps has applied to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board for either a license under Chapter 27 of the County Code or for a variance from the standards established therein. On April 20, 1972, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (the predecessor of the Department of Environmental Regulation) gave temporary and conditional approval for six months to the Broward County Pollution Control Program. This approval provided that the County has full authority to enforce its own laws, rules and regulations, provided that they must be as strict or stricter than those of the State. The County was also required to modify its rules if the State subsequently adopted the regulations in conflict with those of the County. On November 7, 1972, the Department of Pollution Control gave Broward County full and final approval pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in 1974 and 1976 the State and Broward County entered into new agreements. These agreements were the result of DER's desire to make uniform all its agreements with all qualified local programs. The Broward County pollution control program including the portion administered by the Environmental Quality Control Board, continues to be an approved local program as defined at Section 403.182, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter an Order denying South Florida Water Management District's application for a water quality permit and for a dredge and fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982. * NOTE: Illustration I, noted in paragraph 8 and Illustration II, noted in paragraph 49 are not a part of this ACCESS document. Illustrationn II is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
Findings Of Fact The applicant currently operates a 58 slip marina Village at the proposed site, which was constructed under a modified permit from the Department in 1980 by Sunset Realty. Subsequent to that construction, the Petitioner commenced its Marina Village project on uplands adjacent to the existing dock facility and entered into a lease with Sunset Realty to operate the present marina as part of its "Boca Grande Club." The operative portion of the existing marina, that is, where boats are moored and operate, is in water eight feet or greater in depth. The marina provides fuel service at a separate fuel dock as well as electric and telephone service at the individual slips, thus permitting boats using the slips to hook up to on- shore electrical and telephone service. Sewage pump-out equipment is available at the fuel dock and a portable sewage pumping facility is available to be moved to each slip as necessary. Boca Grande Club employs a full time dock master who lives aboard a boat at the existing facility. The facility presently generally serves larger craft, that is, boats generally larger than 25 feet in length and serves some vessels in excess of 60 feet in length. The marina village portion of Boca Grande Club is a condominium, residential development, which is nearly completed and will consist of 48 residential units. A second portion of the Boca Grande Club is located on the Gulf of Mexico some 2,000 feet away from the marina village. The entire project employs slightly more than 100 people. The Petitioner contends that the existing marina of 58 slips is not sufficient to provide adequate dock space for the residents of the development, as well as members of Boca Grande Club. It also contends that the existing dock elevations are such as to make access from small boats to the dock difficult. The number of residents or club members requiring boat slips was not established, nor was it shown that efforts to modify existing dock elevations have been attempted unsuccessfully. In any event, the Petitioner applied to the Department on February 15, 1985, to construct the approximate 3450 square feet of additional dock facility. This would include a "T" shaped structure with an access ramp or walkway extending approximately 189 feet toward the existing channel from the shore. The waterward "T" portion will be 237 feet ~n length. Additionally,. an "L" shaped structure with two sections, each approximately 75 feet in length, would be constructed which would accommodate six boat slips. The "T" shaped dock will accommodate 19 boat slips at its waterward end. The docks proposed will contain ten 3' X 15' finger piers with regard to the "T" shaped dock and two 3' X 15' finger piers attached to the "L" shaped dock. The applicant would install 42 mooring pilings in the bottom of Gasparilla Sound for the mooring of boats using the docks. Thus, the applicant proposes the addition of approximately 25 boat slips with the proposed docks, all of which will be located within Gasparilla Sound, in the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This is a Class II water body pursuant to Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, and has also been designated an outstanding Florida water, pursuant to Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The docking facility will be located in an area vegetated by sea grass, including turtle grass and associated algae. The access ramp for the "T" dock would be through a mangrove fringe including red, white and black mangroves. The Department's appraisal recommended denial of the application unless certain modifications to the "T" shaped dock are accomplished, including omitting the "T" shaped docking structure or relocating it to an area without grass beds; that the pilings should be driven into place rather than placed in augured holes; that turbidity screens should be installed and staked around the proposed piling site and that no boats over 25 feet in length or equipped with heads or toilets should be allowed to moor at the docking facility, nor should boats be permitted with people living aboard them. On September 5, 1985, the Respondent issued its Intent to Deny indicating that the project was expected to violate water quality standards and that the construction of the dock and the presence of the moored boats attendant to use of the dock would lower existing water quality in terms of turbidity, biological integrity, bacteriological quality, especially as to fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria and based upon the DER's position that the "T" shaped dock would not clearly be in the public interest in several respects. The Department has no objection and proposes to issue a permit for construction of the smaller, "L" shaped dock. In response to the Intent to Deny, the Petitioner resurveyed the seagrasses in the area and located a site where the water depths sloped to deeper water and seagrasses were sparser. It modified its application, moving the waterward extension of the dock over the deeper water in the less dense seagrasses, but could not move the dock to a location to avoid seagrass since to do so would not allow maneuvering room for larger boats utilizing the existing dock. The applicant agreed to the other suggestions of modification by the Respondent. Thus, the applicant subsequently modified the application to include "bow-in" mooring of boats so as to place boat propellors over the deepest possible waters at the mooring site, as well as raising the central portion of the access ramp leading waterward from the shore, to provide for greater light penetration and less shading of seagrasses, as well as narrowing the dock to five feet in width where it passes through the mangrove fringe, so as to limit alteration of the mangroves at the site to only three trees. The Department continues to take the position that the permit should be denied, however, on the basis that the construction of the dock and the presence of the boats attendant to the dock will lower existing water quality in terms of the above particulars and based upon the DER's evaluation that the "T" shaped dock will not clearly be in the public interest. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY The Petitioner tendered C. W. Sheffield, professional engineer, and Dr. Martin Roessler as experts in the field of water quality and they were accepted without objection. The respondent tendered the expert testimony of Mr. Doug Frye and William Porter, respectively a dredge and fill specialist and supervisor and an environmental specialist with the Shellfish Monitoring Program for the Department of Natural Resources, who were accepted as expert witnesses in the areas of water quality and, with regard to Mr. Porter, the impacts of water quality on shellfish. It was thus established that the ambient water quality in the cove which contains the present marina and where the proposed docking facilities would be is generally good. The water meets all relevant State regulatory standards with the exception of fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters. In that regard, repetitive samples have shown violations of the fecal coliform and total coliform bacteriological standards for Class II waters on a number of occasions. The data relied upon concerning fecal coliform organism levels at the project site was collected and analyzed over approximately a one year period during which time the samples were shown to contain fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria in violative concentrations a number of times. Marinas are known discharge sources for fecal coliform organisms. This is especially true of moored boats in marinas which often have toilets or heads which are illegally flushed into the State waters within the marina. The presence of moored boats with heads are known discharge sources of fecal coliform organisms and the boats utilizing the present marina and the proposed project do, and likely will, have toilets on board, which can be improperly discharged into the waters of the marina. This marina has been established to be a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms in violation of the relevant standard for Class II waters of the State. There presently exists relatively high levels of fecal coliform organisms ranging up to 50 organisms per 100 milliliters of water in the area of the existing marina. This level of concentration exceeds the regulatory standard for fecal coliform bacteria in the Class II water quality rules. Although Mr. Porter discussed the possibility that high levels of coliform bacteria could be caused by birds or animals depositing fecal material in the water, he established that the likely source of elevated levels of this bacteria was improper operation of heads aboard boats, as pointed out by the fact that samples taken in other areas of the Gasparilla Sound away from marina sites do not exhibit the high coliform levels found on repeated occasions at the subject site. Thus, it has been established that the ambient water quality is within State standards for all parameters with the exception of fecal and total coliform bacteria for Class II waters. The Petitioner contends that Class III water standards are appropriately applied herein inasmuch as the Department placed the Class III standards rather than the Class II standards at issue in its Intent to Deny, albeit mistakenly. There is no question, however, that there are Class II waters of the State involved at this site and the subject area is within the aquatic preserve and outstanding Florida waters. The Petitioner is charged with knowledge of this inasmuch as the aquatic preserve boundaries are delimited in the Department's above-cited, published rule. In preparing and processing its application and electing to proceed with this project, the Petitioner is charged with knowledge that these are Class II waters and that the water quality criteria and considerations applicable to Class II outstanding Florida waters are the appropriate parameters with which it must comply. In any event, this is a de novo proceeding and the Department's initial position with regard to this application is not binding in favor of or to the prejudice of any party to the Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes proceeding. IMPACT ON BENTHIC COMMUNITY ·9. There is a moderate stand of seagrass at the proposed site of the "T" portion of the dock or waterward end of the dock, with dense seagrass beds existing toward the shore, over which the narrower walkway portion of the dock will traverse. Seagrass beds are an especially productive marine community which contribute greatly to the biological diversity in surrounding waters because of their important function in the marine food chain. That function is involved with the seagrasses production of detrital matter consisting of seeds and vegetative material which marine organisms feed upon and upon which organisms larger fish, including commercial and sport fish species, feed upon. Potential adverse impacts caused by a project of this type on the Benthic Community at the project site and especially the seagrass beds involve the potential shading of seagrasses caused by the location of the dock over them, as well as the mooring of boats over them which shading retards or eliminates photosynthesis, which ultimately can kill the seagrass and thus reduce marine productivity in the area. The concentration of boats at such a mooring site as the end of this "T" dock will concentrate the effects of prop scouring, washing and prop dredging, which will have a destructive effect on seagrasses as well as the settling out of sediment from propellor wash or disturbance of the bottom on the seagrasses which can ultimately smother them as well as other marine life forms. In discussing these considerations, it should be pointed out that the "T" portion of the dock would be oriented in a general north-south direction which causes the shadow of the dock to move rapidly as the sun passes overhead in a general east to west direction. This would tend to minimize the effect of shading on the seagrass of the dock itself, particularly with regard to the approach ramp portion of the dock which is relatively narrow. That portion of the dock extending toward the shore runs in an east to west direction and would not exhibit the same rapidly moving shadow, but the central portion of the approach walkway has been elevated to such an extent that light reaching under the dock from both sides will be sufficient to allow photosynthesis of the seagrasses under the dock, although not for as long a period of the day nor at the same rate as would be the case if the dock were not present. The Petitioner asserts that its voluntary relocation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock from an area of dense sea grass to a moderately populated sea grass bed plus the proposed bow-in mooring of boats so as to alleviate propellor damage to the seagrass, together with its view concerning the prevailing water depth at the end of the dock, will serve to prevent damage to the seagrass at the end of the "T" dock where the boats will be moored. It has been shown, however, that the mooring of boats whether bow-in or otherwise will still create a significant amount of shading of the bottom which, together with the shading caused by the "T" dock as well as the associated finger piers will retard or prevent photosynthesis to some extent, especially where boats are moored for days at a time without moving. This will significantly reduce the marine productivity attributable to the seagrass by retarding its natural function or, in some cases, killing it with the resultant loss of the detrital production as well as carbon production, the former being crucial to the proper functioning of the marine food chain in the area. If the seagrass is damaged or extinguished by the shading effect, prop scouring and washing, and/or settlement of turbidity on the seagrass, or a combination of these factors, not only will its productivity be lost, but the biological diversity of marine life in the area will be reduced as it relates to those vertebrate and invertebrate marine animals which depend on seagrass as a food source either directly or indirectly. Dr. Roessler, for the Petitioner, opined that the attached biological communities or "fouling" organisms such as barnacles which would form on the dock pilings, if they were installed, would provide habitat for marine life and invertebrates and thus enhance the biological diversity of the area. These fouling organisms which attach to pilings, however, represent a very narrow portion of the potential marine biological diversity of life forms in an area such as this. Their advent on the pilings, should the pilings be installed, would not mitigate for the loss of important marine habitat and resultant species diversity that elimination of this portion of the seagrass beds would pose. Thus, reasonable assurances have not been established that significant adverse impact to the Benthic Community in the form of damage or elimination of the seagrass beds and their dependent biota will not occur due to shading and propellor scouring, dredging and washing occasioned by the installation of the docking facility. Respondent's expert witnesses Sheftal, Barth, and Dentzau uniformly expressed a concern for propellor scarring, dredging and prop washing of the seagrass beds caused by an improper operation of boats in the project area where water is too shallow over the grass beds to protect them from the resultant propellor damage. In this regard, the Petitioner's own experiments with actual boats indicated that approximately one to 1 1/2 feet of water will remain between the bottom of the sound and the boat propellors at the end of the "T" dock for the general type and size of boats which will use the dock, even assuming that the boats are moored bow inward, thus taking maximum advantage of the deepest water possible under the propellors when a boat engine is started. Respondent's witness Dentzau performed a test with a 21 foot boat with an approximately 100 horsepower outboard engine running it in both forward and reverse at the "T" end of the dock. He was able to readily generate a "plume" of turbidity consisting of sand and other bottom material suspended in the water by the scouring action of the propellor. Although it was demonstrated for water quality parameter considerations that this turbidity plume did not violate the water quality standards for turbidity, it obviously shows that over time the turbidity suspended by boat propellors will settle on the seagrasses and other bottom dwelling biota to their detriment and, more immediately important, demonstrates that prop washing and scouring will occur by boats even if moored bow-in at the presently proposed site of the "T" shaped portion of the dock. The Petitioner proposes by the configuration of its "L" shaped dock in conjunction with the IT" shaped dock, as well as with buoy lines, to keep boat traffic away from the dense grass beds surrounding the proposed dock site and over which the walkway will extend. The Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent grass beds. It has not been demonstrated, however, what steps can be taken to effectively prevent boats from approaching the side of the proposed dock around the ends of the buoy lines and over the dense grass beds toward prohibitively shallow water where prop scouring and scarring will occur. Further, although the Petitioner will mark the entrance channel to the marina itself to keep boats from straying over adjacent dense grass beds, the likelihood of propellor damage to the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the "T" dock has been exacerbated by the concentration of boat traffic which will result by installation of that dock, over waters at the mooring site which are of insufficient depth to protect the grass bed at that location from scouring and washing from boat propellors. In view of these reasons, significant adverse impacts to the Benthic Communities and especially to the grass beds themselves will result by installation of the docking facility at the site proposed, primarily because of insufficient water depth for safe operation of boats in relation to the well-being of the grass beds in the vicinity of the end of the dock and because of the shading which will result by installation of the "T" shaped portion of the dock in conjunction with the boats to be moored to it and the finger piers between the boat slips attached to it. WATER QUALITY The Respondent, through its water quality expert witness, Doug Frye, expressed the concern that the proposed project would violate Rule 17-3.051, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the State's waters be free from pollutants above a certain level measured by various accepted and codified scientific methods of measurement. In this regard, the primary concern of the Department is bacteriological quality as well as turbidity resulting from boat operation. The turbidity standards contained in the above Rule provides that State waters not exceed 29 nephelometric turbidity units above the natural background level. The Respondent contends that this level will be exceeded as a result of operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock. The Petitioner, however, presented a soils analysis and silt settling study which showed that bottom materials in the area involved consist of sand, with some finely pulverized shell and that this material settles very rapidly after being disturbed with little silt remaining in suspension a significant period of time after the disturbance. This is primarily because the level of organics in the bottom substrate is very low at this site. In this connection, the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Sheffield, anchored a 16 foot boat with a 40 horsepower outboard motor in the docking area of the proposed project. He operated the boat at 1,000 RPM for an extended period of time while measuring the resultant turbidity. The results of his measurements showed turbidity to be in the range of 5-11 NTUs. The Respondent's witnesses, however, operated a larger 21 foot boat at the location of the "T" shaped portion of the dock maneuvering it back and forth with a fairly large outboard motor in the 100 horsepower class, which might be presumed to be typical of the boats which will be using the proposed facility. The maneuvering of the boat with the larger engine in this shallow water created a clearly visible plume of turbidity shown by photographs introduced into evidence by the Respondent. In fact, however, although the turbidity plume was clearly visible, the Respondent's own direct measurement of turbidity taken from within the plume immediately after it was generated was 23.8 NTUs, still below the State standards for violations as to turbidity. The existing marina facility has a fuel dock and has adopted a fuel spill contingency plan. There will be no fueling of boats nor fuel kept at the proposed docks. Nevertheless, marinas were established to be a known source of discharge of oils and greases and the presence of more boats utilizing all the dock facilities, especially during fueling and maintenance procedures, will result in additional oils and greases being deposited in the water. Even if there is no fueling facility planned for the proposed docks, the additional boats represented by the 25 additional slips sought to be approved will have to be fueled and likely at the existing facility. This will heighten the risk of fuel, oil and grease spills. In this regard, it must be remembered that the present marina and the proposed docking facilities are in outstanding Florida waters in which no degradation of ambient water quality is permitted. In this context then, the Petitioner/Applicant has, not provided reasonable assurances that pollution levels for oils and greases will not increase as a result of the potential addition of 25 boats to this marina facility. A substantial issue has been raised in this proceeding concerning water quality as it relates to the bacteriological standard. It has been established that this marina is presently a source of discharge of fecal coliform organisms which frequently are present in sufficient concentrations so as to violate the standard for that organism for Class II waters. Fecal coliform bacteria are accumulated in the bodies of shellfish. The shellfish themselves are not harmed, but contaminated shellfish can accumulate concentrations of as much as 100 times the ambient fecal coliform bacterial levels present in the waters they inhabit. Fecal coliform bacteria can cause extreme illness in human beings, sometimes even paralysis and death. Fecal coliform bacteria in State waters results from the deposition therein of human or animal waste. The Petitioner maintains a sewage pumpout station located at its fuel dock with a direct connection to its sanitary upland sewer system, as well as a portable sewage pump that can be moved to each boat slip for pumping out of toilets or "heads" on boats. Upland fish cleaning stations will additionally be provided with the proposed docks so as to prevent refuse from fish cleaning activities being deposited into the waters of the cove. The fact remains, however, that there presently exist high levels of fecal coliform organisms in the waters of the cove at the marina site, in the above noted violative concentrations on repetitive occasions. The presence of boats moored in the marina with "heads" aboard are a known discharge source of fecal coliform organisms. The Petitioner proposes to restrict boats using the facility to those boats without marine heads aboard or requiring those with heads to keep them locked or otherwise not discharge them into the waters of the marina. If boats utilizing the marina have toilets aboard, however, there is a substantial likelihood that at some point those toilets will be discharged into the waters of the cove before any of the Petitioner's monitoring personnel are aware of it. The problem is thus one of enforcement. In this regard, it is established that even with the sewage pumpout station and the portable sewage pumpout device, that there are a number of "live-aboard" boats with marine heads in the marina at the present time and customarily. This has caused the above found violations of fecal coliform, Class II water standards. Although the Petitioner proposes to restrict boats at the proposed docking facility to those less than 25 feet in length and to establish a monitoring program by the marina management personnel to assure that the boats with heads only contain heads approved by Coast Guard regulation, reasonable assurances have still not been established that the enforcement plan proposed can be effective in ensuring that no marine heads or other sources of coliform bacteria will be discharged into the waters of the cove at the project site. The plan proposed by the Petitioner simply did not ensure that boats having marine heads will not use the marina and that those persons using boats so equipped will not, on some occasions, discharge the heads into the waters of the marina at the project site nor that spills will not result in the sewage pumping-out process. The Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Porter, confirmed that most fishing boats of the open "center console" variety of 25 feet length or less do not contain marine heads, nevertheless, he established that in his experience monitoring marinas of this sort, the restrictions against marine heads of the non-approved variety and the attempted restriction against boats discharging the contents of their heads into the waters of the marina cannot be effectively enforced nor was it established that fishing boats without marine heads will be the only type of boat to use the proposed docking facilities. Accordingly, the waters of the cove at the marina site and project site are in frequent violation of the fecal coliform and total coliform parameter for Class II waters and reasonable assurances have not been provided that the fecal coliform bacterial levels will not increase as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed facility with its attendant boats. Because of the likelihood of shellfish contamination by fecal coliform bacterial levels which will likely increase if the proposed project is constructed and operated, together with the loss of marine habitat and productivity posed by the harm likely to result to the seagrass beds in the vicinity of the proposed facility due to attendant boat operation, it has been shown that the water quality parameter for biological integrity in these Outstanding Florida Waters will likely be degraded. The "Diversity Index" of marine microinvertebrates in the area of the affected seagrass beds will likely be reduced below 75 percent of background levels. Therefore, in the context discussed above, the proposed construction and operation of the 25-slip marina facility with the "T" dock will lower ambient water quality in these outstanding Florida waters and will result in violations of State water quality standards for Class II waters in the above particulars. SHELLFISH HARVESTING Mr. William Porter of the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation established that the cove where the project would be located is closed to the taking of shellfish as a result of the contamination or potential for contamination of shellfish by coliform bacteria contained in fecal material. His Department's water quality sampling confirmed the elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the cove on repetitive occasions. This elevated level of coliform organisms was shown to result from improper operation of marine toilets upon vessels using the marina at the present time. Because of the potential for contamination from vessels discharging fecal material, Mr. Porter established that the Department would likely close an area 50 percent larger than the present shellfish harvest closure area as a result of a 50 percent increase in the number of boats capable of using the marina if the proposed project is built. Mr. Porter acknowledges that if it could be assured that boats using the marina did not contain heads, the increased area of closure might be lessened after this project were built. He also established as pointed out above that such restrictions on boats containing heads from using the proposed boat slip is very difficult to enforce. Even with the present central sewage pumpout facilities and portable pumpout equipment at the existing marina, the marina still has failed to comply with fecal and total coliform standards for Class II waters on a repetitive basis. The management of the present marina has allowed live-aboard boats at the marina even though it has posted warning signs against boat owners discharging toilets in the cove waters. Mr. Porter also acknowledged that the Boca Grande North Marina, owned by Gasparilla Pass, Inc., was recently permitted by the DER and constructed and has not yet resulted in the Department's closing an additional area to the taking of shellfish. The area the marina is situated in, however, is only "conditionally approved" for the taking of shellfish, meaning that it is subject to closer monitoring by the DNR with a view toward the possible necessity of closing waters in the area of that marina. It was not established, however, how the fecal coliform or total coliform levels in the waters adjacent to that marina compare to the existing marina or the site of the proposed docking facilities at the existing marina, nor what conditions might prevail which would render that other marina a comparable site to -be used as a relevant demonstration of what conditions might be expected at the present marina if the proposed project were built and operated. Thus it has been shown that even though the Petitioner proposes limiting the size of boats at the proposed facility and closely inspecting and regulating any marine heads on boats using the facility to make sure they comply with Coast Guard regulations, it has not been demonstrated that the additional deposition of fecal coliform bacteria in the waters often the cove will be adequately prevented by the proposed enforcement measures. It is thus reasonably likely that the construction of the proposed project will lead to the closing of an additional area of water which is presently approved for shellfish harvesting. The closure of shellfish harvesting in waters is contrary to the public interest in terms of recreational values, fishing and marine productivity and others of the seven public interest criteria quoted below. Further, the contamination of shellfish, which can cause severe illness or even death in human beings, is clearly contrary to the public interest and there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish contamination is already occurring in the area due to the characteristic of shellfish by which they accumulate or store fecal coliform organisms to reach injurious levels for human consumption even though the shellfish themselves appear to be healthy. The area of the proposed project is extensively used for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting at the present time, outside the immediate closed waters of the marina within the cove. PUBLIC INTEREST Section 403.918(2) (a) (1-7) requires that the Petitioner provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest. The public interest considerations of those seven criteria concern whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety or welfare or property of others: whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats; whether it will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the project vicinity; whether it will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the effect on the current condition and relative value of functions reformed by areas affected by the project. Although Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, related that the attached fouling communities, such as barnacles, which would form on the proposed docks and pilings would increase the diversity of marine habitat available, that will not offset the loss of marine habitat occasioned by the increasingly detrimental effect imposed by the project and the operation of it on the seagrass beds, in the manner discussed above. The fouling communities expected by Dr. Roessler to occur on the pilings to be installed, will not provide, nor replace the value of, the detritus (seeds and leaves) produced by the seagrass which would be lost, which is an important food source for marine organisms in the upper portion of the food chain in the area, some of which organisms include fish and have a high recreational value and commercial value. The importance of detrital production by the seagrass beds outweigh the value of the addition of the fouling communities on the pilings. In fact, the total diversity of marine species actually might decline even though the fouling organisms would be added with the installation of the pilings, once the harmful effects on the seagrass beds begin to occur after installation and operation of the proposed facility and over the life of the marina. Thus, in this regard, the project is contrary to the public interest and certainly not clearly in the public interest. Additionally, there is a substantial likelihood that shellfish may be contaminated which, in turn, will have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare. The harvesting of shellfish has a substantial recreational and commercial value and is an important aspect of the marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The heightened coliform bacteria production caused by the resultant expansion of the marina will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity and will degrade the current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the marine habitat in the vicinity of the proposed dock. Finally, there is no question that the project will be of a permanent nature. The various detrimental effects on the public interest consideration found herein are rendered more critical by the fact that there is no truly redeeming public purpose or use for this project. This will be essentially a private docking facility designed to serve the residents of the applicant's attendant real estate development. The upland development is a condominium development and the slips will be owned by the condominium owners and not open to the general public, although the Petitioner did make vague reference to an idea that some slips might be rented to members of the public. This was not established to be the case and, in any event, the primary purpose of the boat slips is to enhance the desirability of the upland development. Although the Petitioner emphasizes that the advent of the additional slips might help attract as much as $1,000,000 additional revenue to the Boca Grande area by assisting the applicant in hosting the Annual Tarpon Release Fishing Tournament, it is also true that any development in a coastal area will likely represent some economic benefit to that area, but there is also a substantial economic and recreational benefit to maintaining the outstanding Florida waters involved in an undegraded condition and maintaining the present Class II, approved shellfish harvesting area unimpaired. Thus, although the proposed docks might be used for sponsorship of the subject fishing tournament and it can be said that that would enhance fishing and recreational value to some extent, it was not established that the tournament will not occur and that the extra revenue and enhancement of fishing and recreational value it will generate will not occur in the Boca Grande area anyway. The potential detrimental effects of the proposed project, delineated above, will also decrease fishing and recreational value over many years and for the life of this project in terms of harm to the marine habitat occasioned by the constant deposition of oils, greases and fuel and coliform bacteria in the Class II waters involved, as well as the other detrimental aspects of the project discussed above. It has not been established that the economic benefits of the fishing tournament and the addition of the boat slips will not occur but for the installation of this proposed docking facility. Although it may help relieve a shortage of marina slips in the area, it was not shown that this is the only alternative to relief of that shortage. ALTERATION OF MANGROVES The original site for the access ramp or walkway to the "T" shaped portion of the dock was selected through an on site inspection conducted in part by Respondent's witness, Andrew Barth. The mangrove area is less dense at the site of the walkway's penetration of the mangrove belt than surrounding mangrove areas. Petitioner's witness, Dr. Roessler, has participated in many studies involving mangroves in South Florida. He identified each tree within the proposed dock pathway. Through narrowing of the dock walkway to five feet and the relocation agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Barth, it has been established that only three mangrove trees will be removed by the construction of the dock. Thus, there will be no substantial alteration or degradation of the mangrove fringe area at the project site. DOCK CONSTRUCTION Mr. C. W. Sheffield was accepted as an expert witness in the field of marine engineering. He established that the pilings will be installed using a 6 to 8 inch chisel point driven into the bottom of the sound with an air hammer. There will be no augering or other means of excavation used which would generate a substantial amount of turbidity. The air hammer will result in compaction of sediments by forces radiating out from the piling as it is driven, with the counteracting sheer force caused by the piling installation causing a slight bulging in the bottom around each piling, but nothing more. There will be no significant movement of sediment in the water column. The construction of the dock will take place moving from the land waterward, utilizing equipment mounted on the dock. Thus, construction barges will not be required to come into the shallow grass bed area with the potential for its damage. Small barges would be used in the deeper waterward portions of the project to install the mooring pilings off-shore from the end of the "T" dock. Turbidity curtains will be used during all construction, surrounding all phases of the construction work. In Mr. Sheffield's experience, such measures have resulted in no violation of the State turbidity standards at other similar projects, and are not likely to with this one. CUMULATIVE IMPACT A number of permits have been issued by the Department for docking facilities to the north of this proposal and other facilities are already in existence. Dr. Roessler opined that the geographic location of these, as well as that of this project, in light of the numerous inlets and high degree of tidal flushing and exchange through the inlets, will not result in any adverse cumulative impact occasioned by the addition of the proposed dock with 25 slips to those already existing in the Sound. It is noteworthy that, with regard to the potential this project poses for damage to the seagrass beds and for heightened production of fecal coliform bacteria, with the environmental damage attendant thereto, no proof was offered by either party concerning those considerations or effects to the extent that they might or might not exist at other marinas or docking facilities in the Gasparilla Sound area. There has been no proof to establish any cumulative impact.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject permit application, except for that portion seeking authorization for the "L" shaped dock and six boat slips attendant thereto, which should be granted with the agreed-upon conditions and restrictions contained in the above Findings of Fact. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are numbered below in the order in which they were presented (unnumbered) by the Petitioner. 1-6. Accepted Accepted, excepted for the last two sentences which are immaterial Accepted. Accepted, except as to the proffered material import of the last sentence. Accepted, except the first sentence which is not in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, except as to the last three sentences which are not supported by preponderant evidence 12-16. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as not being in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not as dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, except as to the last sentence which is rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except as to the third and last sentences which are rejected as being contrary to the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted, except for the third and last two sentences which are rejected as to their purported import in the resolution of the material issues presented and as being not in accordance with the preponderant evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not as dispositive of the jurisdictional issue concerning "dredging and filling" for the reasons found in the Recommended Order. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-18. Accepted 19. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented. 20-25. Accepted. Rejected as not being a complete finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted, except as to the issue of water dept which would actually be less at the critical location involved. Accepted. Accepted, but not material. 31-31. Accepted. 35. Accepted, but not truly material in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1386 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Stephen Fox, Director Division of Environmental Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Marina"), is a corporation. Marina is the applicant for the permit which is at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility for, among other things, wetland resource permitting. The Department also has responsibility, pursuant to an agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Management District"), for Management and Storage of Surface Water permitting within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Water Management District. Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Save the Manatee"), is a non-profit, Florida corporation. The stated purpose of Save the Manatee includes protection of the manatee and its habitat through the promotion of public awareness, research and lobbying efforts. Petitioner, Friends of the Greenway (hereinafter referred to as "Friends"), is an organization which promotes responsible environmental policy in Citrus County. Save the Manatee and Friends are "citizens" of the State of Florida. They filed a verified petition for hearing in this matter. They alleged in the petition that the proposed facility will injure, harm, or otherwise pollute the state's natural resources. Members of Petitioners observe, study and enjoy manatee in Citrus County, including waters that would be impacted by the proposed facility. Marina's Permit Applications, the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue and the Petitioners' Challenge. On March 28, 1995, Marina applied to the Department for a permit for Management and Storage of Surface Water. On March 10, 1993, Marina applied to the Department for a wetland resources (dredge and fill) permit. The permits sought by Marina are associated with Marina's plan to construct a marina facility. The marina is to be constructed within an existing dolomite mine pit (hereinafter referred to as the "Mine Pit"). On or about February 6, 1996, the Department entered a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by Marina. A copy of the draft permit, permit number 092278259 and MS092681199, was attached to the notice of intent to issue. On or about March 13, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's proposed decision to issue the draft permit. Marina's Proposed Facility. Marina's proposed facility is to be located in Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County is located on the west coast of Florida, north of Tampa, Florida, and south of the mouth of the Suwannee River on the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the proposed facility, Marina proposed to construct 256 wet slips (122 of which may be covered) on six floating docks, a boat ramp, a boat lift bay, a 63-boat dry storage facility, a convenience store with fueling and sewage pump-out facilities, a clubhouse, a stormwater facility and a parking area. The proposed facilities will also include a potable water system. The water system will provide drinking water to the clubhouse, bait stand, fueling facility, boat storage area and the marina docks. The proposed facilities will also include an on-site wastewater treatment facility. The treatment facility will consists of an aerobic system with on-site effluent disposal through drainfield lines into the soil. No sewage treatment percolation ponds will be included on the proposed site. The stormwater system for the proposed site will be separate from the wastewater treatment facility. The stormwater system will include the collection and treatment of stormwater in on-site basins prior to discharge into the Mine Pit. The system will be designed to retain the entire rainfall from a 100-year storm combined with wet detention and on-line systems involving percolation. All these systems have been designed to meet the design standards required by Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code. The post development runoff discharge rate for the proposed site is projected to be less than the current rate of runoff discharge on the proposed site. The proposed facility will not cause any increased flood risks on-site or off-site. No part of the surface water management system will be located within 100 feet of any public supply well. The fish cleaning stations included for the proposed facility will be located over land. Waste associated with fish cleaning will be collected for disposal. Wastewater from the stations will be directed into the wastewater treatment system for the proposed facility. Wastewater from boats at the proposed facility will directed to the wastewater treatment facility through two pumpout stations located near the proposed fueling facility. Solid waste from the proposed facility and boats utilizing it will be disposed of in trash receptacles located throughout the proposed site. They will ultimately be picked up by a solid waste hauler for disposal. Erosion around the Mine Pit will be controlled through the placement of 2,200 feet of rip rap, vegetation planting and other erosion control techniques. The Mine Pit where the proposed marina is to be constructed is located on the south side of the Cross Florida Greenway Waterway (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Waterway") (formerly known as the "Cross Florida Barge Canal"), approximately one half mile east of where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Waterway. The proposed site is approximately 4.75 miles from where the Greenway Waterway empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Mine Pit is U-shaped, approximately 31.4 acres in size, and has an average depth of -20 feet, with pockets of -33 feet in depth. Marina proposed to fill the Mine Pit to 13.0 feet NGVD, place 2,285 linear feet of rip rap, and dredge 4.75 acres of the Mine Pit to -13.0 feet NGVD. The waters of the northwestern corner of the Mine Pit are separated from the waters of the Greenway Waterway by a plug of land approximately 100 to 150 feet wide. Marina proposed to remove the plug to create an entrance from the marina to the Greenway Waterway. The removal of the plug will result in a lowering of the level of water in the Mine Pit by approximately 3 to 5 feet to sea level, the level of the water in the Greenway Waterway. Marina also proposed to excavate a flushing canal channel between the Greenway Waterway and the northeast corner of the Mine Pit. The boundary of the property on which the Mine Pit is located is approximately 100 feet from the Mine Pit at its closest location. The Mine Pit was excavated from lime rock and Ona fine sands; Pits and Udorthents (both manmade) soil types exist throughout the project site. Weedy vegetation dominates the historically disturbed upland area surrounding the Mine Pit. Saltbush (Baccharis halimfolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), dog fennel (Eupatorium spp.), marsh fleabane (Pluches spp.), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera) exist along the Greenway Waterway. Southern red cedars (Juniperius silcicola) are scattered throughout the area. Cattails (Typha spp.) have invaded the edges of the Mine Pit. Ownership of the Proposed Site Property. Marina has no ownership interest in the property where the Mine Pit is located. Nor has Marina ever held such an interest. The proposed facility site is held in three undivided interests. At the time the permit applications were filed by Marina, Marina had an option contract to purchase the proposed site. At the time of the final hearing of this matter, the option contract was no longer in force. Marina had also been authorized in writing prior to filing the permit applications to act as agent for the owners of the site for purposes of seeking environmental permitting. It was stipulated at the time of the final hearing that two of the three undivided interest owners had authorized Marina to act as their agent for purposes of obtaining the permits at issue in this proceeding. At the time of the final hearing, the third undivided interest owner did not authorize Marina to act as its agent for any purpose. Marina is agreeable to a new condition being added to the draft permit by the Department requiring Marina to submit documentation to the Department before any development of the proposed facility is commenced proving that Marina has acquired interests in the proposed site necessary for it to carry out the permit conditions. It is the Water Management District's policy in implementing Rule 40D- 4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code, which requires applicants to provide reasonable assurances concerning their proposed projects, is to require the land owner to be the permittee. The Greenway Waterway and the Surrounding Area. The Greenway Waterway consists of natural and man-made waters formerly intended to be used as the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The waters of the Greenway Waterway are classified as "Class III" waters. The Cross Florida Barge Canal was deauthorized on January 22, 1991. In its place was created the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The State of Florida owns the majority of the lands within the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The state can, therefore, control development along the Greenway Waterway. A portion of the Greenway Waterway was constructed as part of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by digging a canal from a spillway at Lake Rousseau, east-northeast of the proposed site, to the Gulf of Mexico. This portion of the canal (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Canal"), is straight and was designed for a depth of 12 feet. The actual depth of the Greenway Canal varies and, in some locations, is 18 feet deep. The Greenway Canal is also approximately 250 feet wide. The Greenway Canal intersects the Withlacoochee River, which is located to the east of the proposed facility. Prior to the construction of the Greenway Canal, the Withlacoochee River ran from a spillway at Lake Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. After construction of the Greenway Canal, the portion of the Withlacoochee River which connects with the Gulf of Mexico was, and still is, separated from the Greenway Canal by an earthen berm. The western portion of the Withlacoochee River (hereinafter referred to as the "Upper Withlacoochee"), continues to run from Lake Rousseau for approximately 1.3 miles to the Greenway Canal and then runs to the Gulf of Mexico through the Greenway Canal. The depth of the Upper Withlacoochee varies from river bottom which is exposed at low tide to areas of approximately 20 feet. The depth of water, the speed at which water flows and the amount of aquatic vegetation in the Upper Withlacoochee varies depending on the amount of water released from Lake Rousseau through the spillway. For the past year, the rate of flow in the Upper Withlacoochee has been relatively high. There are currently two public boat ramps, but no marinas, located on the Greenway Canal. One of those boat ramps is in disrepair and the evidence failed to prove that it is in use. There are no marinas on the Upper Withlacoochee or the Greenway Canal. There is a Florida Marine Patrol station located on the Greenway Canal approximately one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 19. Whether the presence of the station will have any impact on the enforcement of speed limits in the Greenway Canal is purely speculative. Approximately 2 miles west of the proposed facility is an existing active mining operation owned by Independent Aggregates. Barges transport mine product along the Greenway Canal from the mine to the Gulf of Mexico. Another organization, known as "Holnam", has been permitted by the Department to construct a barge-loading facility opposite the Independent Aggregates' barge facility and mine. It is unlikely, however, that Holnam will actually begin operating barges on the Greenway Canal. A speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been imposed by the Department throughout the Greenway Canal. The speed limit was imposed to protect West India Manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal. The Upper Withlacoochee has been designated an idle-speed zone by local ordinance. Crab traps are located along the banks of the Greenway Canal for approximately four miles into the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico. Traps are generally anchored to the bottom by lines and are spaced approximately 100 feet apart, 20 to 15 feet from the bank. A channel extends for approximately 12 to 15 miles into the Gulf of Mexico from the mouth of the Greenway Canal. The channel is marked. There are obstructions and shallow water outside this channel. Prudent boaters will continue in the channel for approximately four to nine miles before turning north or south into the Gulf of Mexico. Operators of smaller boats and those with knowledge of the area are able, however, to navigate north or south closer to shore. Impact on the Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat. The West India Manatee is an endangered species, which means that it is in danger of extinction. Approximately 3000 manatees are found in Florida waters. Approximately half are located on the east coast and half on the west coast of Florida. There is little interchange between the two groups. The State of Florida is attempting to restore the manatee population to a size which will help to insure its survival as a species. In order for the manatee population to survive, human development and interaction with manatees must be managed. Manatee habitat needs to be preserved from development. Two of the most significant challenges to the survival of the manatee are the number of manatees killed by boats and the increasing number of boats in Florida waters. Collisions with boats is the greatest known cause of manatee deaths (approximately 25 percent). Manatee change locations frequently searching for food, drinking water, resting areas, potential mates and birthing areas. They also return to preferred habitat features. Manatee are attracted to areas that are calm and quiet for birthing areas. Shallow water, accessible from deeper water, is essential for birthing. After giving birth, the mother and calf generally remain in the area for some period of time, sometimes as long as months, until the calf is able to survive elsewhere. They will leave an area, however, if disturbed. Boat traffic, even at slow speeds, can cause disruption to mothers and young calves. Boat traffic can separate a mother and calf. There are approximately 300 manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida (from Tampa Bay to the Suwannee River), which includes the area of the proposed facility and Citrus County. This population has been increasing in recent years. Manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida require a stable source of warm water during the winter. During the winter ambient temperatures drop below the level at which the manatees' metabolism will sustain them. As a result of the need for warmer waters, most of the manatee in northwestern Florida spend the winter in Citrus County. Kings Bay, Crystal River and Homosassa all provide warm water locations for manatee. These sites are located to the south of the proposed facility. Kings Bay is the most important winter manatee habitat on the west coast of Florida. During the rest of the year, when waters are warmer, manatee leave their warm water, winter habitats to forage and investigate other habitat. Manatee that winter in the warm water sites in Citrus County generally migrate to the north. They travel to, and past, the mouth of the Greenway Canal, returning by the same general routes in the winter. Manatee also linger at the mouth of the Greenway Canal at the Gulf of Mexico because that area offers a combination of a relatively deep-water channel with adjacent shallow water and aquatic vegetation. Manatee use the waters of the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee. The Greenway Canal is not, however, considered particularly good habitat for manatee. It has relatively deep water, steep banks, little fresh water and little vegetation of interest to manatee. In 1991 Citrus County adopted a Manatee Protection Plan as part of its comprehensive growth management plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not identify the Greenway Canal as essential manatee habitat. The Manatee Protection Plan was adopted with the assistance of the Department. The Plan was based upon a compilation of manatee studies, marina inventory studies, and a comprehensive view of the county's waterway systems at the time the Plan was adopted. "Essential manatee habitat" is defined in the Manatee Protection Plan as "any land or water area constituting elements necessary to the survival and recovery of the manatee population from endangered status". Whether an area is "essential manatee habitat" is to be considered under the Plan as "a criteria for determining areas where dock facilities should be limited." The definition of "essential manatee habitat" for purposes of the Plan is different from the standard to be applied in by the Department in this case. The definition in the Plan is similar to the federal criteria considered and found to be different from that applicable to Department permitting cases in Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So.2d 644, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Manatee Protection Plan contemplates that a master plan will be undertaken to establish the capacity of the Greenway Canal for boat and marina facilities. That master plan has not been developed. The fact that the master plan has not been formally undertaken, however, is of little consequence. The Department, due to the State's ownership of the land surrounding the Greenway Canal, has been able to consider possible uses of the Greenway Canal for boating and marinas without a formal master plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not support a finding that the proposed facility will not have an adverse impact on the manatee. Although the waters of the Greenway Canal do not constitute good manatee habitat, the Upper Withlacoochee is considered good habitat, depending on the amount of water being released from the spillway at Lake Rousseau. Manatee have used the Upper Withlacoochee for feeding, resting and birthing. The Upper Withlacoochee has limited human activity, light boat traffic, sources of fresh water, a warm-water spring and aquatic vegetation. The Upper Withlacoochee has been used for birthing. Infant mortalities reported in the area suggest that the Upper Withlacoochee is used as a preferred birthing area. The rate of mortality suggests a higher rate of successful births. Aerial survey and mortality data also suggests that the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal are utilized throughout the year by manatee. Greatest use is seasonal. Aerial survey data underestimates the number of manatee utilizing the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal due to the lack of water clarity and due to the meandering course of, and vegetation along, the Upper Withlacoochee. Manatee mortality data concerning the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlachoochee provides some indication of the fact that the number of manatee that travel through the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is not insignificant. While there was considerable evidence presented concerning whether the number of manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is accurate or has been underestimated, based upon aerial survey data and manatee mortality comparisons, the critical fact proved by the evidence in this case is that a significant number of manatee do use the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat, including for birthing. The evidence also proved that, in order for manatee to use the Upper Withlacoochee, it is necessary that they travel the length of the Greenway Canal. Another critical fact proved by the evidence is to this matter is that manatee traveling to and from the Upper Withlacoochee must travel the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico past the proposed facility. The evidence was also unrefuted that increased boat traffic from the proposed facility will have the potential to adversely impact the manatee. That adverse impact will take the form of physical injury due to collisions and stress on manatee from increased human activity. The activity could reduce the use of the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat. What remains to be determined is whether the conditions of the draft permit will provide adequate assurances that the impact will not be contrary to the public interest. The Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management determined that, without the conditions to be added to the draft permit it suggested, the following impacts could be expected as a result of approval of the proposed facility: The probability of manatee/boat collisions increases with increasing boat traffic where boaters and manatees regularly inhabit the same waterways. While the current level of barge/vessel traffic does not appear to be a problem, increasing the amount of recrea- tional and commercial vessel traffic to the proposed levels in this narrow waterway is expected to adversely impact the endangered manatee. Barge trips may become more frequent, and barges traveling down the center of the canal drives manatees toward the edges of the canal. This increases the risk of manatee/recreational boat collisions, and increases the risk of these recreational boats driving manatees underneath, ahead of or behind traveling barges. The probability of lethal and sublethal propeller strikes increases. Also, there is not sufficient space for manatees between the canal bottom and the bottom of a fully loaded barge, with only one foot clearance as typical for loaded barges. The probability of a manatee being crushed will increase, and this impact is difficult to offset with conservation measures other than not allowing the activity. Page 2, Petitioners exhibit 7 and CRMI exhibit 10. The evidence in this case supports the foregoing conclusions. The increased boat traffic from the proposed facility, even if limited to sailboats and even if power boats are allowed at lower speed limits than currently in force in the Greenway Canal, may cause impacts with manatees due to the increased traffic and the use of the Greenway Canal by barges and recreational boats. It is possible that manatees, confronted by oncoming recreational boats and barges, may be forced into the path of barges and be crushed. Barges used by Independent Aggregates are approximately 72 feet wide and 250 feet long and are pulled or pushed by tugboats. The probability of this conflict taking place will be greater if barge use of the Greenway Canal is increased as proposed by Independent Aggregates. The greatest threat to the manatee of the proposed facility is the threat of death or injury as a result of cuts or blunt trauma from collisions of boats with manatees. This threat is primarily associated, however, with faster moving, power boats. Therefore, the extent of possible adverse impact on the manatee will be determined largely by the speed limit imposed in the Greenway Canal. To mitigate against the possible adverse impact on manatee, the Department has included certain conditions in the draft permit. Those conditions are found in Condition 6 of the draft permit and were recommended by the Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management. As a result of the Bureau of Protected Species Management's review of the proposed facility, it was recommended that the proposed facility not be approved if all of the conditions suggested by it were not included in the draft permit. All of the conditions recommended, except one, were included in the draft permit. The condition not included was one that provided that a violation of manatee speed zones would be grounds for revocation of the lease of any slip or dock space at the proposed facility. The lease revocation condition recommended by the Bureau of Protected Species Management was not included in the permit due to concern by the Department as to whether the condition could be legally imposed. The language of the memorandum of review of the proposed facility from the Bureau of Protected Species Management suggesting that the proposed project should not be approved unless all recommended conditions are accepted is standard language used by the Bureau and not intended to be strictly interpreted. The Bureau ultimately concluded that, despite its recommendation, it believes that the conditions of the draft permit are adequate to offset adverse impacts to the manatee. The Bureau's explanation is sufficient to eliminate any inference that otherwise may be drawn from its suggestion that the proposed facility should not be approved due to the exclusion of the permit condition concerning revocation of leases for speed zone violators. Condition 6 requires, among other things, that signs warning of possible manatee activity be displayed during construction, that personnel associated with the project be educated about the manatee, and that other measures designed to protect manatee during construction be followed. Due to the fact that most of the construction will take place in the enclosed Mine Pit, there should be little, if any adverse impact on manatee as as result of construction. Condition 6 also provides that permanent manatee warning signs and information concerning manatee be posted by the marina, and that a manatee awareness education program be established at the proposed facility. Condition 6 also limits the use of the boat ramp of the proposed facility to boats stored "on-site." The ramp will not be open to the general public. Finally, condition 6.l. provides the most important limitation of the use of the proposed facility. Condition 6.1 limits use of the proposed facility to sailboats and, therefore, prohibits the use of power boats: . . . until the applicant has provided documentation to the Department that manatee protection speed zones in the CFBC have been revised, approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management, and posted in the CFBC. Occupancy of the facility by sailboats shall not be restricted. The limitation of the use of a marina to sailboats should adequately mitigate the adverse impacts to the manatee from the proposed facility. See Coscan, at 651. The effect of condition 6.l. is to allow Marina to obtain a modification of the draft permit after it is issued to allow power boats based upon events which may take place in the future. There are no guarantees that those events will result in reasonable assurances that the adverse impact to the manatee from power boat use at the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest. The speed zones which must be established and approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management will be established, if at all, through rule- making procedures. See Rule 62N-22.011, Florida Administrative Code. The process would allow public input. Additionally, the outcome of the process would be subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Because of possible challenges to the efforts to impose speed zones, it is possible that speed zones adequate to reduce the adverse impacts to the manatee which would satisfy the public interest test applicable in this matter will not be adopted. The standards which the Department must adhere to in establishing speed zones are not the same standards applicable in this matter. In this matter, reasonable assurances must be given that there will not be adverse impacts to the manatee, a threatened species, contrary to the public interest. Establishing speed zones pursuant to other provisions of law will not insure that the reasonable assurances required for the issuance of the permit at issue in this case will be given. Although the resulting speed zones may be adequate to protect the manatee, there is no way to determine what kind of speed zones will be established. Without knowing the ultimate speed zones which may be established, or, more importantly, to know that the speed zones will meet the public interest test applicable in this matter, it is not possible to find the reasonable assurances Marina is required to provide at this time or at any time before the proposed facility is actually permitted. If reasonable assurances can be given that the use of power boats in the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest once speed zones are established, Marina or the owner of the proposed facility may apply for a permit modification. At that time the requisite reasonable assurances concerning power boat use can be determined. The provision of condition 6.l. allowing Marina to avoid seeking a permit modification at that time is, therefore, at a minimum, unnecessary, and at its worse, an effort to allow Marina to avoid having to provide the necessary reasonable assurances concerning the use of power boats. If only the impact on the manatee were considered in establishing speed zones, it could be concluded slow or idle speed should be imposed throughout the Greenway Canal and for some distance into the Gulf of Mexico in order to adequately reduce the adverse impact from the proposed facility on the manatee. Establishing speed zones, however, requires a consideration of other factors. The evidence in this case failed to address those factors sufficiently to recommend a condition to the draft permit concerning speed zones. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that reasonable assurances have not been given that there will not be unreasonable adverse impact to the manatee if the use of power boats at the proposed facility is allowed as provided in condition 6.l. of the draft permit. Other Public Interest Criteria. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. The evidence also failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The docks and other marina facilities will all be restricted to the Mine Pit, which is not now open to navigation. There is adequate width in the Greenway Canal to allow boats to exit the Mine Pit into the Greenway Canal and for boats and barges in the Greenway Canal to pass each other. Rip-rap to be placed along the Mine Pit shore and other shoreline stabilization activities will be adequate to prevent erosion and shoaling. Groundwater flow at the proposed site should not be adversely affected by the proposed facility, except as discussed, infra. The proposed facility should not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Recreational values (boating and fishing) should be enhanced as a result of the proposed facility. If condition 6.l. is not eliminated and power boats are allowed in the Greenway Canal, there are no assurances that the recreational value provided by the manatee will not be adversely impacted. The proposed facility is intended to be permanent. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect or enhance significant historical or archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. If condition 6.l. is not modified to eliminate the use of power boats automatically upon the establishment of speed zones, there are no reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee will not be adversely affected by the proposed facility. Otherwise, the proposed facility should not have an adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of current functions of the area. Groundwater Quality Standards. The general geology in the area of the proposed facility and the Greenway Canal is known as karst terrain. Karst terrain is geology formed by the solution of limestone over millions of years. Sequential episodes of exposure of the Floridan aquifer, which underlies the area, occurs in karst terrain as the result of the natural formation of sink holes. These sink holes impact the movement of groundwater. Information exists to reasonably describe the hydrogeology of the area in "regional" terms. There is insufficient information generally available about the specific hydrogeology of the proposed site or the immediately surrounding area. Underlying the entire area and the proposed site in particular is the Floridan aquifer. The properties of the Floridan aquifer in coastal Citrus County, including the proposed site, can vary enormously over relatively short vertical distances. This variability impacts the movement of groundwater. The groundwater under the proposed site is classified as G-II. The terms "potentiometric surface" are used to describe the level to which groundwater will rise above sea level. The higher groundwater rises above sea level, the thicker the layer of underlying drinkable water should be before reaching an interface between drinkable and undrinkable water. In central Citrus County, the potentiometric surface is relatively low and flat at approximately 5 or 6 feet above sea level. The resulting interface between drinkable and nondrinkable water is found at 200 or more feet. Due to natural geological conditions, moving to the northwest of Citrus County, including the Greenway Canal area, potentiometric levels are higher. Therefore, thicker layers of drinkable water should be found around the proposed facility site and the Greenway Canal than in central Citrus County. Because of higher potentiometric surface in the area of the Greenway Canal, the layer of drinkable water would be expected to continue beyond 120 feet below the surface. Construction of the Greenway Canal has resulted in the intrusion of saltwater from the Greenway Canal into the groundwater. It has also resulted in the upconing of mineralized (sulfate) waters from deeper to less deep levels within the Floridan aquifer. These impacts have been significant with regard to the chloride levels (from the saltwater) and sulfate upconing. The impact of the construction of the Greenway Canal on saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing is the result of the lowering of the surface waters to sea level in the Greenway Canal. The lowering of the level of water in the Greenway Canal has had the effect of decreasing the potentiometric surface and, consequently, reducing the thickness of the layer of drinkable groundwater. Saltwater has intruded along and beneath the Greenway Canal. The extent of this intrusion is represented graphically on Petitioner's exhibits 13 and 14. Saltwater intrusion has occurred primarily as a result of downward leakage of saltwater traveling up the Greenway Canal. The saltwater intrusion has been localized around the Greenway Canal. The wedge of saltwater intrusion has reached to approximately where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Canal, approximately one-half mile east of the proposed site. Although it is "theoretically" possible that the saltwater wedge could continue to move along the entire length of the Greenway Canal, the evidence fails to support such a conclusion. Due to freshwater discharges from Lake Rousseau, the evidence supports a conclusion that the saltwater wedge will not move further eastward to any significant extent. The lowering of the waters of the Greenway Canal to sea level has had the effect of bringing sea level elevations to the Floridan aquifer several miles further inland than had been the case before construction of the Greenway Canal. Groundwater adjacent to the Greenway Canal, which is at levels higher than sea level, has discharged into the Greenway Canal. This has caused a lower groundwater level and the movement upward of groundwater. Similar effects have occurred naturally along the Withlacoochee River. As groundwater rises it comes into contact with a geologic unit which contains calcium sulfate. The sulfate mixes with the groundwater causing the "mineralized" groundwater. While the change in surface waters in the Greenway Canal was quick, the change in groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing has taken place only as fast as groundwater in the area flows. Generally, groundwaters flow very slowly. The impact of the Greenway Canal on upconing of sulfates will continue over time. Mineralized waters will continue to move upward and, perhaps, laterally away from the Greenway Canal. Pockets of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) can be found naturally occurring around the proposed site. Sulfate enriched groundwater in coastal areas naturally move toward, and discharge into, the surface waters along the coastal boundary. This process occurs along the Gulf of Mexico and the shoreline of Citrus County. The construction of the Greenway Canal has disrupted this natural process. The Mine Pit, when it was in use, was dewatered to different levels at various times. The dewatering took place for varying periods of time. Usually, the Mine Pit would be completely dewatered for a period of approximately three months. On one occasion, the Mine Pit was dewatered for a period of two years (1989 to 1991). It was dewatered to allow the removal of dolomite. The Mine Pit was allowed to fill back up with water after each dewatering. The dewatering of the Mine Pit was regulated by the Water Management District. The permit allowing dewatering of the Mine Pit required that the permit holder mitigate for adverse impacts of dewatering, including the inducement of natural contaminants into the aquifer. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent of adverse impacts of the dewatering or whether the permit holder actually mitigated against any such adverse impacts. The lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit caused some upconing of sulfates for the same reason that the digging of the Greenway Canal did. Lowering the water level in the Mine Pit lowered the potentiometric level. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the impact or how long the impact lasted. The lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level by connecting the Mine Pit to the Greenway Canal as proposed by Marina will have the same general impact as the digging of the Greenway Canal on the upconing of sulfates. Unlike the impact of the dewatering of the Mine Pit, the proposed modification will be permanent. Lowering the water level will have the same type impact for the same reasons that the digging of the Greenway Canal caused upconing. The potentiometric level will be permanently lowered; the layer of drinkable water will be permanently decreased. The evidence failed to prove that the lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level as a result of the proposed project will have the same impact on saltwater intrusion. This impact is less likely because the Mine Pit is four and a half miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The upconing of sulfates as a result of the construction of the proposed facility will cause the levels of sulfates found in some portion of the currently drinkable layer of groundwater to exceed water quality standards. The area impacted will consist of groundwater which would otherwise have been expected to be potable. Comments concerning the proposed facility were provided to the Department by the Water Management District. By letter dated August 16, 1995, the Water Management District informed the Department that it was anticipated that the proposed facility would result in saltwater intrusion and upconing of mineralized water and that the area's groundwater could be expected to be degraded inconsistent with Water Management District rules. In response to the Water Management District's comments, Marina agreed to undertake a hydrogeologic study to gather site specific information to address those concerns. As a part of Marina's study, one monitoring well was drilled on the proposed site. The well was drilled to a depth of 450 feet in order to gather data concerning water quality at various depths. In early 1996, the Water Management District concluded that the results of the study undertaken by Marina had resolved its concerns. The test well was drilled to the south of the Mine Pit, approximately 2500 feet from the Greenway Canal. The water quality tests run on water taken from the test well reflected a sharp change in water quality at a depth of approximately 120 feet. The water below that level contained high levels of sulfates: 552 milligrams per liter of sulfate. Immediately above the high sulfate waters, low sulfate levels (12 milligrams per liter) were found. This result is contrary to what would be expected to be found based upon the higher potentiometric surface in this area of Citrus County. Because the potentiometric surface is higher in the area, it would be expected that the layer of drinkable groundwater would be considerably higher than 120 feet. The findings concerning the thickness of the drinkable groundwater found at the test well are consistent with the conclusions concerning the impacts of the digging of the Greenway Canal. As a result of the digging of the Greenway Canal and the lowering of the water level to sea level, the resulting decrease in the potentiometric surface has caused the upconing of mineralized waters and a decrease in the layer of drinkable groundwater. The Department and Marina have not disputed the fact that drinkable groundwater will be impacted by the upconing of mineralized waters (sulfates) as a result of connecting the Mine Pit with the Greenway Canal and lowering the level of water in the Mine Pit to sea level. The Department and Marina, however, have suggested that the extent of the impact of the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will not extend more than 100 feet from the Mine Pit and will be limited to the proposed site. The evidence failed to support this position. The unplugging of the Mine Pit will have the effect of increasing the area of water below sea level in the area by 12 percent of the size of the area of the Greenway Canal. Data from test wells around the Greenway Canal and other data has indicated that the upconing of mineralized water as a result of the lowering of the water level in the Greenway Canal has extended considerably more than 100 feet from the Greenway Canal. In light of the fact that the Mine Pit is equal in surface area to 12 percent of the surface area of the Greenway Canal, there is reason to be concerned that the area of impact from the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will also be significant. In light of the foregoing, and due to the variability of the geology of the area, the data from a single well on the site is of questionable value. Data from a single well simply does not provide the information necessary for Marina to provide reasonable assurances that the impact on groundwater from its proposed facility will be limited to an area of 100 feet from the Mine Pit. There is simply not enough data concerning the Mine Pit to conclude with any reasonable assurance that the upconing of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) will be limited to an area of 100 feet around the Mine Pit. Because of the size of the Mine Pit in relation to the Greenway Canal and the impact on upconing from the Greenway Canal, it is more likely that the impact of upconing will exceed 100 feet. A log of geologic characteristics of the test well was maintained. A confining unit or layer was found between the high-sulfate and low-sulfate waters at between 110 and 120 feet below the surface. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent to which the layer may extend horizontally from the well location. In light of the general geology of Citrus County and the region around the proposed site, insufficient data exists to reach any conclusion about the extent of the confining layer. Establishing the extent of the confining layer would require more extensive (and costly) study of the site. The existence of a confining layer would also have no significant impact on the degree of upconing as a result of lowering the water level in the Mine Pit. I. Surface Water Quality Standards. Petitioners stipulated that the proposed facility would not violate surface water quality standards except with regard to the standard for chloride. Because of the flow of fresh water from Lake Rousseau and the flushing canal to be constructed at the proposed site, reasonable assurances have been given by Marina that there will be sufficient flushing of the Mine Pit to preclude a violation of chloride standards for surface waters. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the possibility that the salt water wedge resulting from the construction of the Greenway Canal may extend landward and eventually into the Mine Pit was too speculative and "theoretical".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc.'s application for wetland resource permit (dredge and fill) and the application for Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Goodwin, Esquire Save the Manatee Club, Inc. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 210 Maitland, Florida 32751 Peter Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne Hrydziusko Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Douglas Roberts, Esquire HOPPING, GREEN, SAMS & SMITH, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Perry Odom, 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
