problem arises from the fact that standing was tried as an issue with the merits of the permit rather than resolved before the hearing. As to the merits, the ALJ made several important factual findings that the permitted work would not harm certain environmental aspects in the area. However, the ALJ did not make a blanket finding there would be no harm to the area, and the Secretary properly considered the facts applicable to standing separate from the merits. The Secretary based the legal conclusion that Fullman had standing upon the ALJ’s Finding of Fact # 11. This finding of fact was supported by Fullman’s testimony in the record regarding his family’s use of the affected area. Cf. Fla. Chapter of the Sierra Club v. Suwannee Am. Cement Co., 802 So.2d 520, 522-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Reily’s argument would confuse standing and
holding sierra club lacked standing where it failed to provide facts concerning any individual member whose use of river would be adversely affected holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding individual standing issue waived holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that a provision of the energy policy and conservation act of 1975 that allowed suit by any person who may be adversely affected by certain standards demonstrated a congressional intent to eliminate prudential standing limitations