STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TOWN OF WINDERMERE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NOS. 90-1782
) 90-1813
ORANGE COUNTY PARKS ) 90-2155
DEPARTMENT and DEPARTMENT OF ) 90-2156
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held in Orlando, Florida, on August 7-9, 1990, before Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
The parties were represented at the hearing as follows: For Town of Windermere: J. Stephen McDonald
Robertson, Williams, Mitnik & McDonald, P.A.
538 E. Washington St. Orlando, FL 32801
For D. T. Rosser and
Mildred R. Grice: J. Christy Wilson, III Brigham, Moore, et al.
111 North Orange Avenue Suite 1575
Orlando, FL 32801
For Carl D. Patterson, Jr.: Carl D. Patterson, Jr., pro se For Orange County Parks
Department: Joel Prinsell Eugene Legette
Assistant County Attorneys Orange County Legal Department Orange County Administration
Center
P.O. Box 1393
Orlando, FL 32802-1393
For Department of
Environmental Regulation: Douglas H. MacLaughlin
Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the Orange County Parks Department is entitled to a dredge and fill permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction and installation of a boat dock on Lake Down.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On February 26, 1990, the Department of Environmental Regulation filed an Intent to Issue a permit to Orange County Parks Department for the construction of a floating dock approximately 420 feet long by 7 feet wide.
On March 13, 1990, the Town of Windermere timely filed a petition for an administrative hearing with respect to the Intent to Issue. This petition was later assigned DOAH Case No. 90-1782. Other petitions were timely filed by Robert W. Williams (DOAH Case No. 90-1813), D. T. Rosser and Mildred R. Grice (DOAH Case No. 90-2155), and Carl D. Patterson, Jr. (DOAH Case No. 90-2156).
Mr. Williams did not appear at the hearing and later authorized the withdrawal of his petition.
At the commencement of the hearing, the undersigned denied the ore tenus motion of Mr. Rosser, Ms. Grice, and the Town of Windermere for a stay of the final hearing until the conclusion of a pending circuit court action. The undersigned also denied the same parties' ore tenus motion for a view of the site of the proposed dock.
The undersigned denied the Town of Windermere's Motion for Official Recognition, which was filed on July 27, 1990, and requested recognition of pleadings in Ninth Judicial Circuit Case No. CI89-7975. However, the undersigned granted the Town of Windermere's Motion for Official Recognition of certain admissions of Orange County in the same case. This motion was filed on August 7, 1990.
The Department of Environmental Regulation filed a Motion in Limine on August 3, 1990. The motion was denied except for the matters raised in Paragraphs 3, 4, and 7. The same ruling was entered on Orange County's Motion in Limine, which was filed on August 7, 1990, except that the Paragraphs for which the motion was granted are 3, 4, and 6.
Following the conclusion of the hearing, various parties filed, without leave from the undersigned, additional pleadings and documents. These items have been ignored and are not part of the record on which this recommended order is based. The Town of Windermere called three witnesses and offered into evidence 20 exhibits. Mr. Rosser and Ms. Grice called three witnesses and offered into evidence ten exhibits. Mr. Patterson called no witnesses and offered into evidence one exhibit. The Orange County Parks Department called five witnesses and offered into evidence 22 exhibits. The Department of
Environmental Regulation called one witness and offered into evidence one exhibit. The parties jointly sponsored one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted into evidence.
The transcript was filed September 28, 1990. Each party filed a proposed recommended order. Treatment as to proposed findings is detailed in the appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Application
On November 1, 1989, Orange County Parks Department (Orange County) applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating boat dock in the Town of Windermere on Lake Down. The application, which is dated September 7, 1989, describes the proposed project as a "public improvement of an existing boat ramp facility."
The application describes a floating dock attached by short hinged sections to fixed docks that would be affixed, at normal water elevations, to upland. The application explains that the purpose of the dock is to accommodate boats and pedestrians in loading and unloading boats at the ramp. The dock would, according to the application, reduce wave and wakedisturbance action on the existing shoreline and thus reduce the current rate of erosion at the site. The application assures that no existing vegetation would be disturbed except in the area of the fixed docks.
According to the application, the floating dock and two fixed docks would measure about 420 feet long by 7 feet wide with several wideouts of about
10 1/2 feet. The dock is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. The location map attached to and a part of the application shows that the dock would be at the southernmost extent of Lake Down.
The survey attached to and a part of the application provides submerged and upland elevations in the vicinity of the proposed dock. The survey states that the water elevation of Lake Down is 98.8 feet. Nothing indicates whether
98.8 feet is the average water elevation or the water elevation on the date of the survey on June 28, 1989.
Other portions of the application describe the composition of the dock parts. The only parts in contact with the water would be galvanized steel pilings, which would be jetted or driven not more than 15 feet deep into the submerged bottom, and plastic floats attached to the bottom of the dock for floatation. The application also indicates that construction-period turbidity would be controlled through the use of turbidity curtains.
Another diagram attached to and a part of the application superimposes the dock over the submerged elevations. A note on the diagram states that, under "Plan 1 and Plan 2, Orange County would excavate existing grade under floating dock to elev 97.0." The applicant proposed excavation under the dock due to the shallowness of the water under and lakeward of the dock.
The diagram depicts a dock that would run parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the shore. The diagram discloses that the proposed dock would begin immediately east of the existing boat ramp. The diagram indicates that the floating dock runs about 390 feet.
The elevation at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock is about
100 feet. At what the construction drawings call "average lake elevation" of
99.5 feet, the piling at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock would thus not be submerged. About 15 feet to the east of the northwest corner, where a hinge connects the west fixed dock to the floating dock, the elevation is between 98 and 99 feet.
At average water elevation, the shoreside of the floating dock generally ranges from five to ten feet from the shoreline, with extremes of one foot at the southeast corner of the west fixed dock and 17 feet about 220 feet east of this point.
The submerged elevations change significantlyunder the 390 feet of floating dock. On the lakeside, where boats would dock, the following elevations exist under the dock at 40
Dock interval 40' 80' 120' 160'
Lakebottom elevation 95-96' 95' 92' 93'
200' 240' 280' 320' 360' 390'
91-92' 91' 92-93' 93-94' 96' 96'
The submerged elevations are higher (and thus water depths shallower) on the shoreside of the dock, which would not be accessible to boats. For the back of the floating dock, the submerged elevations exceed 97 feet for the westernmost 40 feet and a short segment at the eastern end of the floating dock; the remaining elevations are less than 97 feet.
Unlike the west fixed dock, which would stand almost entirely in upland even at average water elevation, the east fixed dock would stand almost entirely in water at the same water elevation. Also, the west fixed dock would be relatively small and run parallel to the shore beside the ramp. The east fixed dock would be oriented in a northwesterly direction from, and perpendicular to, the shore.
The northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock would be accessible by boats. The submerged elevation under the northwest face, which is between 15 and 20 feet offshore from the average shoreline, is between 95 and 96 feet. The water depth adjoining the northeast face is shallower because the northeast face, although accessible to boats, would runupland, past the average shoreline at 99.5 feet, to an upland elevation of about 101 feet.
The rate of drop of submerged elevation is uneven along the length of the proposed floating dock. Water depth increases more rapidly from the center of the floating dock. For instance, at the 200-foot interval from the west end, the elevation drops from about 91.5 feet at the front of the dock to 88 feet at a point ten feet lakeward of, and perpendicular to, the dock. In other words, the water becomes 3 1/2 feet deeper in the first ten feet.
The lakebottom drops more gradually at the west and east ends of the proposed dock. For instance, at the 40
increase in depth ten feet out is only about 2 1/2 feet. At the north corner of the east fixed dock, the increase in depth ten feet out is only about 1 1/2 feet.
The diagram also depicts the existing boat ramp that would be served by the proposed dock. The ramp, which is oriented in an eastnortheasterly direction from the shore, is less than ten feet north of the proposed west fixed dock. The ramp measures about 20 feet wide upland and about ten feet wider farther out into the water.
The elevation of the submerged north corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 94 and 95 feet. The elevation of the submerged south corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 95 and 96 feet. The lakebottom isfairly flat at the boat ramp. Over its 40-foot length, the elevation of the ramp changes by only about 5 feet.
A separate diagram attached to and a part of the application depicts the floats that would be attached to the bottom of the decking. The floats would be about 18 inches high and draw about three inches of water when the dock is supporting no weight. A 40-inch high railing would run along the back of the dock. However, the railing would not extend along the northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock. Thus, nothing would deter a boat from docking along these two faces of the east fixed dock.
On November 9, 1989, Orange County filed an application amendment, which contains drawings that eliminate all excavation. The amendment states: "Dock will be relocated if conflict with existing shore occurs." This amendment was filed at the urging of a DER representative, who would not have recommended the application for approval without the change.
There are other suggestions in the record that Orange County would be willing to amend its application to locate the proposed dock farther from shore and in deeper waters. However, Orange County did not specifically offer an amendment, and the record offers no indication where the dock would be, if Orange County again amended the application.
On June 20, 1990, Orange County informed the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) by letter that the legal description provided with the application was inaccurate. The letter provides a new legal description and a list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Rosser, Ms. Grice, and Mr. Patterson own property adjacent to the proposed project or reside in close proximity to Lake Down so as to be substantially affected by any material degradation of water quality.
The new legal description encompasses only 1.46 acres rather than the
12.16 acres set forth in the original application. The land eliminated from the application is west and north of the existing boat ramp.
Orange County plans to make considerable improvements to the existing boat ramp, such as by the addition of substantial parking and a septic tank on the land eliminated from the original application. However, the present application does not request any permit for such work.
The Intent to Issue
On February 26, 1990, DER filed an Intent to Issue the permit for which Orange County had applied. The Intent to Issue indicates that the permit is to construct a floating dock on Lake Down about 420 feet by 7 feet, plus wideouts, and notes that the request to dredge along the dock had been withdrawn.
According to the Intent to Issue, the bank between the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and the shoreline has eroded, probably as a result of boaters pulling their boats onto shore for temporary mooring. Although DER did not determine the water elevation on the date of the inspection, the Intent to Issue reports that water depths range from a few inches alongshore to about three feet at the shoreside of the proposed dock. The Intent to Issue notes that Orange County is currently trying to condemn the land north and west of the boat ramp to upgrade the launching facility with a larger ramp, picnic area, and parking spaces for between 50 and 100 vehicles.
The Intent to Issue finds that the proposed docking facility and its associated boat traffic would not result in violations of state water quality standards nor degradation of ambient conditions in Lake Down or the Butler Chain. Except for limited construction-period turbidity, which could be controlled with a siltation barrier, displacement or disruption of the lakebottom would reportedly occur only during piling installation, and shoreline vegetation would be removed only at the fixed docks at either end of the floating dock.
Addressing prop dredging, the Intent to Issue notes:
It is not anticipated that damage to the lake bottom will result from boats moving into and away from the dock. If water levels fall to particularly low levels, the county can close the ramp until adequate depth is available again.
Addressing the possibility of increased boat traffic on the lake, the Intent to Issue states:
It is not anticipated that use of ramp will significantly increase as a result of the proposed construction. Those individuals who are seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have done so despite the poor facility currently available. The new dock will provide mooring capability without causing shoreline erosion. Furthermore, the dock will provide a safer place for boatersto walk and wait. Presently, because there is no onsite parking nor mooring available, boaters park vehicles to the east of the boat
ramp site in an undeveloped parcel. They then walk west along Conroy-Windermere Road while sharing the road shoulder with vehicles and trailers. The dock, in combination with the proposed (upland) sidewalk won't shorten the distance to be walked but will remove pedestrians from the roadway sooner to the relative safety of the mooring area.
The Intent to Issue concludes that Orange County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in violations of state water quality standards and that the project is clearly in the public interest. Thus, DER expressed its intent to issue the permit, subject to various conditions, in the absence of a timely filed petition.
Specific condition 7 of the Intent to Issue addresses the issue of prop dredging:
When the lake level drops to the point where boats entering and leaving the dock cause damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area, the county shall close the ramp and dock until the water returns to acceptable levels.
Specific condition 8 addresses the County's plans for additional improvements for the boat ramp facility:
Issuance of a permit for the dock does not guarantee nor infer issuance of a permit orpermits for further improvements to the county boat launching facility.
Additional Findings Regarding Upland
Orlando and the more densely populated areas are generally to the north and east of the boat ramp; Orlando itself is about 10 miles away. The center of the Town of Windermere, which numbers about 1400 persons, is to the west of the boat ramp. About 80% of the users of the boat ramp approach the ramp from the east.
A small vehicle-maneuvering area adjoins the ramp on the west. After unloading the boat into the water, the driver of the trailer-towing vehicle typically drives east on Conroy-Windermere Road about 1600 feet and parks on the south side of the road in a large unimproved lot. The County's permission to use the lot is terminable by the owner without notice.
While the vehicle and trailer are being parked, the person or persons with the boat normally start the engine and idle just offshore from the ramp or moor on the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. After parking the vehicle, the driver generally crosses to the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and walks along a sidewalk running from the parking area to what would be the east end of the proposed dock.
The road and the sandy beach are separated by a thin strip of thick vegetation. Pedestrians continuing westalong the road, past a point across from the east end of the beach, must walk in the staging lane designed for vehicles waiting to enter the maneuvering area. An existing sidewalk on the south side of the road, which runs east of the ramp area, is not used as much because the sidewalk ends almost 800 feet east of the parking area.
Pedestrians typically rejoin their boat at some point along the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. When the boat is spotted, the pedestrian cuts through the vegetation on one of four or five paths running at intervals between the north side of the road and the beach. Traffic on these paths has worn them down noticeably from the prevailing elevations on either side.
The same pattern is repeated upon the return of the boat, which is temporarily moored onshore to allow the driver to disembark, take the nearest path to the road, walk along the north side of the road to the parking area, cross the road, and return with the vehicle to the boat ramp.
Normal summertime usage, when the boat ramp is used more frequently, involves a range of 30-65 boat launchings per day from the boat ramp. However, peak usage is much higher; nearly 400 trailers have been in the parking area at one time.
Present upland usage of the boat ramp area is risky. The staging lane mixes pedestrians and motor vehicles towing trailers. The speed limit on
Conroy-Windermere Road is 35 miles per hour at the parking area and 30 miles per hour at theramp, so westbound traffic is still moving rapidly past the staging lane. Also, Conroy-Windermere Road, which is an urban collector, is heavily travelled with an average daily traffic count of 9400 vehicles. Pedestrians crossing the road at the parking area 1600 feet west of the ramp must cross 22-
24 feet of highway. Pedestrians crossing the road at the boat ramp must cross about 50 feet of highway due to the presence of the staging lane and a painted median. Upland safety would be enhanced by separating pedestrians from the staging lane.
However, the addition of the floating dock would not eliminate the risks associated with upland usage of the boat ramp. Persons still would be required to cross Conroy-Windermere Road, although a proposed crosswalk would reduce present risks somewhat. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the north side of the road would be reconfigured to lead to the floating boat dock, which would be incorporated into the sidewalk system leading toward the center of the Town of Windermere. For some persons using the dock segment of the sidewalk, such as young children and the disabled, close proximity with the water and mooring boats might prove unsafe.
Conroy-Windermere Road has existed for many years, but the portion of the road parallel to the proposed dock was added only about 30 years ago. Previously, the road had turned south, but, following a serious traffic accident, the curve was straightened. Large amounts of fill were added to form the roadbed across the southern tip of Lake Down, which consequentlywas cut off from the remainder of the lake. This fill forms the bank leading to the shoreline directly parallel to the proposed dock.
The boat ramp has also existed for many years. Years ago, grove trucks drove down to the lake in order to take on irrigation water. From time to time, persons would put in canoes at this point. Until the late 1960's, when Orange County paved the ramp, few if any powerboats were launched from the area or even used the lake. Today, the overwhelming majority of boats using the ramp currently are gasoline-powered motorboats. There are no restrictions on Lake Down as to the size of engine permitted on the lake, and the posted speed limit is 36 miles per hour.
The area surrounding the boat ramp features few amenities. Apart from the maneuvering area, staging lane, and ramp itself, the only other improvements are an enclosed portable toilet and a dumpster garbage container.
The Town of Windermere operates two boat ramps on the Butler Chain-- one on Lake Down and one on Lake Butler. Use of these ramps is reserved for Town residents and their guests. The remaining boat ramps on the chain are owned by corporations or private associations. Some boat traffic on the lake is from the use of private boat docks owned by persons owning lakefront land.
Lake Down and the Butler Chain
Designation as Outstanding Florida Waters
By report dated January, 1984, DER recommended that the Environmental Regulation Commission designate as Outstanding Florida Waters the Butler Chain of Lakes: Lake Down, Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Palmer, Lake Chase, Lake Tibet, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting waterways. The January, 1984 report (DER Report), states that the Butler Chain drains into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. Noting that Lake Down is the northernmost lake in the chain, the DER Report states that water flow in the lakes, which are interconnected by a series of man-made navigable canals, runs from north to south.
Reviewing Florida and applicable federal anti-degradation policies protecting high quality waters, the DER Report states:
This antidegradation policy is predicated on the principle that resources are so precious that degradation should not occur except after full consideration of the consequences and then only to the extent necessitated by important economic and social development.
Scientifically, the principle is a valid one in that history has taught that adverse effects are difficult to predict. As scientific knowledge grows, previously unknown effects are discovered, and it is prudent to preserve our natural resources in the face of the unknown.
DER Report, January 11, 1984 memorandum from DER to Environmental Regulation Commission, page 4.
The Butler Chain covers 4700 acres. The largestlake is Lake Butler, which consists of 1665 acres. Lake Down, which is the third largest, consists of 872 acres. Depths of the lakes range from 15-30 feet. According to the DER Report, the upper seven lakes are oligo-mesotrophic with low productivity, high water clarity, and deeper waters. The lower three lakes (Sheen, Pocket, and Fish Lakes) are mesotrophic, with moderate productivity, high coloration of water, and shallower waters.
The DER Report states that the water quality of the lakes is excellent. Lake Down had the highest level of dissolved oxygen: 7.1 mg/l. Biochemical oxygen demand was extremely low, in most cases, including Lake Down, less than 1.0 mg/l. Lake Down also had the lowest presence of chlorophyll a, which is a measure of the presence of algae, and a higher degree of biologically diversity, which is typical of a clean, soft-acid lake, according to the DER Report.
The DER Report concludes that:
An OFW designation will preserve the present environmental values of the Butler Chain of Lakes without any important environmental costs. The existing ecosystem and recreational use of the lakes is dependent upon the maintenance of sufficiently high levels of water quality, which an OFW designation would help to ensure.
Id. at 23.
The DER Report also includes a May, 1975 report of the Orange County Pollution Control Department, which concedes that the Butler Chain is:
one of the few clean water systems left in the Central Florida area. The balance between available nutrient concentrations and the biotic communities has maintained an ecosystem free from the problems that are associated with more enriched systems. The balance is fragile and not well understood.
Any activities which would effect this system will express itself [sic] in the aquatic habitat.
May, 1975 report, page 4.
At the time of its designation, the proposal received numerous endorsements and no objections. On August 16, 1983, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution urging DER to designate the Butler Chain as Outstanding Florida Waters. The Orange County Property Appraiser also supported the designation. In a letter to DER dated September 30, 1983, the appraiser warns that pollution could decrease surrounding property values and cost taxpayers substantial sums for cleanup.
Additional Findings Regarding Lake Down
Effect of Addition of Floating Dock
53. Neither the submerged galvanized steel pilings nor the plastic floats would allow materials to leach into the lake so as to affect measurably the composition or quality of the water. The increased turbidity during construction of the proposed floating dock also could be controlled so as not to have a significant effect on Lake Down.
2. Relevant Water Levels
Water levels have fluctuated considerably in Lake Down. Since January, 1960, to present, the lowest recorded water elevation was 93.86 feet in February, 1987, and the highestelevation was 101.58 feet in August, 1960. Recorded water elevations were less than 97 feet from October, 1977 through August, 1979 and September, 1980 through November, 1982 (during which time the elevation attained 96 feet only six months). Water elevations were between 97 and 98 feet, inclusive, for an additional 29 months during this 31-year period.
From March, 1987 through May, 1989, water levels were between 99 and
100 feet, attaining 100 feet only in December of 1987 and 1989. From June through August, 1989, water levels were between 98 and 99 feet. From September, 1989 through the date of the final hearing, water elevations were below 97.8 feet. From mid-March, 1990 through the date of the hearing, water elevations dropped from 97 feet to 96 feet; at the time of the hearing, the water elevation was about 96 feet.
When the water elevation is 97.8 feet or less, the canal to Wauseon Bay and, from there, to Lake Butler is impassable to all but very small flatbottom boats. At these times, boat traffic tends to concentrate on Lake Down.
Three witnesses for the County and DER testified as to the relationship between the water level of the lake and the operation of the floating dock. One witness for the County testified that the dock would float at 99.5 feet, which corresponds to ordinary high water. The designer of the dock testified that the east and west ends of the dock would cease floating at
96 feet. The DER representative testified that the dock and, pursuant to Special Condition 7, the ramp should beclosed at depths less than 95 feet.
The meaning of Special Condition 7 is unclear. First, it is not clear what is meant by boats causing damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area. Probably, this phrase means actual contact between the prop and bottom, which is known as prop dredging. Thus, boats cause damage to submerged bottoms when the depth of the water is about one foot or less. Special Condition 7 probably ignores the effect of prop wash, where the prop disturbs the bottom, including vegetation, by turbulence rather than direct contact.
The second major ambiguity in Special Condition 7 cannot be resolved on the basis of the present record. The question is whether the ramp and entire dock must be closed whenever the water depth under any part of the dock is one foot or less (recognizing that the floats require about one foot of water). In the alternative, Orange County could close only that part of the dock as to which the underlying water depth is one foot or less. It is likely that DER and Orange County have different opinions on this question, with the County taking the latter position.
Regardless how Special Condition 7 is construed, it fails to address the damage to submerged bottom that the"floating" dock will do when parts of it begin to ground. When partly grounded, the floating dock will pound up and down on the lakebottom in response to wave action and traffic on the dock.
Over 40 feet of the shoreside of the dock will be grounded at water elevations of 97 feet or less, which, without regard to the effect of dock loading or wave action, is the point at which "dock dredging" commences. Water elevations have been less than 98 feet for a total of nearly seven of the last
31 years.
The east and west ends of the lakeside of the floating dock would also begin to ground at a water level of about 97 feet. By the time water elevation falls to 96 feet, which existed at the time of the hearing, at least 80 feet of the west end of the floating dock and at least 30 feet of the east end of the floating dock would be grounded, again assuming no wave action and no load on the dock.
Additionally, prop dredging would also take place at water elevations of 97 feet immediately adjacent to the dock, at its east and west ends. These water elevations have been experienced for a total of over four of the last 31 years. Another feature of the design of the proposed dock makes it likely that prop dredging will take place regardless of the water elevation. A popular area of the proposed dock would be the east fixed dock because it would be the closest point, by more than 100 yards in some cases, to the existing parking area. Boats could approach the northeast face of the east fixed dock up to an elevation of 101 feet. In other words, except in periods of unusual high water, some boats could and probably would use a section of the fixed dock in the same manner as temporary moorings are made today: in effect, by running up onto the beach. Prop dredging of the bottom would take place if boats approached the northwest face of the fixed dock when the water level fell to about 96.5 feet. The same is true for at least the first 40 feet of the west end of the floating dock.
The resuspension of bottom sediment by prop wash would begin at depths of anywhere from 18 inches to seven feet, according to the testimony of the DER representative. Although important variables, such as the composition of the bottom and size and speed of the prop, affect prop wash, significant prop wash takes place for at least three feet under the prop. If three feet were the minimum depth necessary to avoid prop wash and, thus, lakebottom damage, the east 160 feet and west 70 feet of the floating dock would not be usable at water levels not exceeding 96 feet, such as at the time of the final hearing.
The significance of lakebottom damage is great under and lakeward of the proposed dock. A thick carpet of bogmoss begins about ten feet offshore, which is roughly where the dock would begin, and continues out into the lake. Bog moss, which captures and retains sediments, would be damaged by the dredging action of the pounding floating dock when it begins to ground and boats using the floating dock at water elevations described in the preceding paragraphs.
The phosphorus-rich sediments would then be resuspended in the water column.
3. Ambient Water Quality
One of the key elements to preserving the health of Lake Down is to avoid conditions that can lead to the presence of excessive nutrients in the system. The presence of excessive nutrients, which leads to eutrophication, usually occurs because of the increased availability of a limiting nutrient. The limiting nutrient in Lake Down is phosphorus. Thus, a condition precedent to the eutrophication of Lake Down is an increase in the level of phosphorus in the water.
The presence of phosphorus in the water can be detected directly, by measuring the phosphorus itself. The presence of phosphorus can also be detected indirectly, by measuring the effects of the nutrient or conditions that may result in the release into the water of additional phosphorus.
Indicators of the nutrient levels of a lake include the presence of chlorophyll a, which, as a measure of the amount of algae in the water, is an indicator of the enrichment process. As a lake proceeds from an oligotrophic to a mesotrophic condition or from a mesotrophic to a eutrophiccondition, the presence of algae and chlorophyll a will increase.
Indicators of conditions that may result in the release of additional phosphorus into the water include turbidity measurements and clarity data, such as Secchi depths. The sediment found in the submerged lakebottom contains greater concentrations of phosphorus in various organic and inorganic and soluble and insoluble forms than the water column itself contains. When this sediment is disturbed, part of the previously trapped phosphorus is released into the water column. The phosphorus is thereby made more readily available for supplying the nutrients necessary to contribute to the enrichment process, at least until the phosphorus settles back into the sediment where it can be locked up until redisturbed.
As relevant to this case, the ambient water quality of Lake Down in the baseline year can largely be assessed in terms of the following data, which are obtained from Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.01 ug/l; turbidity: 1 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: 3.5 meters; and pH: 5.97.
In the year ending immediately preceding the filing of the County's application, the following data were collected, according to Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.59 ug/l; turbidity: .75 NTU; total phosphorus:
.01 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 3.5 meters; and pH: 6.36.
In the summer of 1990, when the hearing took place, the County's expert collected from Lake Down the followingaveraged data, which are shown on Orange County Exhibits 15 and 17: chlorophyll a: 1.22 ug/l; total phosphorus:
.011 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 4 meters; turbidity: 1.0-1.2 NTU's; and pH: 6.97.
In the same summer, the Town of Windermere's expert collected the following data from Lake Down: turbidity: 0.92-1.8 NTU's; pH: up to 7.2; and total phosphate: .04-.05 mg/l. The only finding materially different from the findings of the County's expert is the amount of total phosphate. The findings of both experts are credited. The higher finding is supported by, among other things, the recording in the County's records of .037 mg/l of total phosphorus on May 15, 1990, according to Orange County Exhibit 12.
In a phosphate-limited, oligo-mesotrophic lake such as Lake Down, total phosphates of .03-.04 mg/l require serious attention in terms of what may be the beginning of a significant degradation of ambient water quality standards. The increase in chlorophyll a is consistent with a trend toward enrichment of the lake since the baseline year.
The record establishes the role of motorboat traffic in degrading ambient water quality. Bottom sedimentsoften contain many times more phosphorus than is found in the water column. In the case of Lake Down, sampled bottom sediment contained 11 mg/l of phosphorus, or over 200 times the amount contained in the water column. The phosphorus is trapped in the sediment, which, if disturbed, releases the phosphorus back into the water column. Prop dredging may resuspend the sediments and release the phosphorus, as well as destroy bottom vegetation that tends to retain the sediments. Prop wash also may resuspend bottom sediments, even to depths of seven feet beneath the churning prop.
Ultimate Findings of Fact
Impact of Proposed Dock on Boat Traffic
The proposed floating dock would substantially increase use of Lake Down by motorboats. The dock would generate increased boat traffic on Lake Down because of improvements in navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp and convenience for boaters in picking up and dropping off passengers and walking between the existing parking area and mooring area.
The dock, which would be longer than a football field, is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. At typical current launching rates, the dock would be capable of mooring, at one time, one-quarter to one-half of the boats using the boat ramp on a given day. DER reasons in the Intent to Issue that boat usage would not increase significantly because persons seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have overcome the limitations of the present facility. This reasoning ignores persons more casually interested in accessing the Butler Chain. The above-described improvements in navigability and upland safety will increase the frequency of their visits, which presently may be limited to peak days, such as holidays. If the ratio of serious to casual users corresponds roughly to the ratio of typical boat launches to peak boat launches, the number of casual users may outnumber their more earnest counterparts by six to one. The large capacity of the proposed boat dock suggests that Orange County was targeting these more casual boaters.
In theory, Special Condition 7 could have a substantial effect upon boaters' access to Lake Down if the ramp and dock were closed when water elevations fell to 97 feet, at which point much of the shoreside of the dock would already be grounding and boats could not approach the east or west ends of the dock without prop dredging. The ambiguity of Special Condition 7, whose meaning remains elusive even after DER and Orange County have had opportunities to explain its operation, precludes assigning the condition any significance, except as a clear invitation to litigate in the event the floating dock were constructed under the subject Intent to Issue.
2. Ambient Water Quality
79. As relevant to this case, the relevant ambientwater quality of Lake Down is the baseline year. The value of chlorophyll a was 50% lower in the year ending March, 1984, than in the year ending with the subject application. Total phosphorus was about the same, as were Secchi depths. Turbidity was 25% less in the latter year, but the lake had acidified slightly.
3. Changes in Water Quality
The water quality of Lake Down has deteriorated since it was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The amount of chlorophyll a has increased, which is consistent with increased levels of nutrients in the water column. By the summer of 1990, phosphate readings were as much as four or five times greater than in the baseline year and had reached a level that threatens water quality in a phosphate-limited lake such as Lake Down.
The role of motorboat traffic in disturbing phosphate-laden bottom sediments and destroying bottom vegetation has been discussed above. The dock dredging at lower water elevations, which are frequently encountered, as well as prop dredging immediately adjacent to the dock, would be especially harmful in view of the thick carpet of bog moss present underneath and lakeward of the proposed dock.
4. Effect of Proposed Dock on Water Quality
Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not lower ambient water quality standards with respect to the effects of dock dredging, prop dredging in the immediate vicinity of the dock, and prop wash associated with increased powerboat traffic on the entire lake.
Boats presently mooring on the south shore undoubtedly dredge the bottom with their props. However, the effects are less destructive than the prop dredging that would be associated with the proposed dock, even ignoring the effects of dock dredging and prop wash from additional powerboats. First, fewer boats are using the area now than would be with the proposed dock. Second, although possibly once vegetated, the lakebottom adjacent to the shore is sandy without much vegetation or sediment, so resuspension of sediment and release of phosphorus is less of a problem presently than it would be with the use associated with the new dock.
The record does not support a finding that the water quality of Lake Down has been adversely affected by the erosion of rubble and fill from the bank used to construct the realigned Conroy-Windermere Road 30 years ago. Concerns about unfiltered stormwater runoff bypassing the vegetated strip by pouring down the eroded paths into the lake are misplaced. Some governmental entity has installed a stormwater system along aconsiderable part of Conroy-Windermere Road, and the outfall is directly into Lake Down shoreside of the west end of the proposed dock.
5. Effect of Proposed Project on Public Interest
Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would be clearly in the public interest after balancing the statutory criteria.
The proposed project would achieve a net gain in upland safety, although not without exposing pedestrians using the sidewalk to new risks. The project would also increase boater safety by improving navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp. However, degradations in water quality negatively impact the issues of public health, the property of others, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and fishing or recreational values, which ironically may be threatened as Lake Down risks becoming a victim of its well-deserved popularity. The current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the lakebottom also militate against a finding that the proposed project, which would be permanent in nature, is clearly in the public interest.
The factors in the preceding paragraph outweigh the statutory factors in favor of a finding that the project is clearly in the public interest. In addition to the gains in upland safety and navigability, the other favorable factors are that the proposed project would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. A neutral factor isthat the proposed project would not help or harm significant historic and archaeologic resources.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
All parties have standing. Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5).
"No person shall dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters without a permit from [DER], unless exempted by statute or [DER] rule." Section 403.913(1). Dredging "means excavating, by any means, in waters." Section 403.911(2). No exemption exists for the present proposed project.
The criteria for issuance of a permit are set forth in Section 403.918, which provides:
A permit may not be issued under ss. 403.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides [DER] with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . .
A permit may not be issued under ss. 403.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides [DER] with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. However, for a project which significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, as provided by [DER] rule, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will be clearly in the public interest.
In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or isclearly in the public interest, [DER] shall consider and balance the following criteria:
Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others;
Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;
Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project;
Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature;
Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and
The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.
If the applicant is unable to otherwise meet the criteria set forth in this subsection, [DER], in deciding to grant or deny a permit, shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by the project. . . .
Section 403.919 addresses the issue of cumulative impacts as follows: [DER], in deciding whether to grant or deny
a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider:
The impact of the project for which the permit is sought.
The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought.
The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, basedupon land use restrictions and regulations.
Rule 17-302.700(9)(i) identifies the Butler Chain of Lakes, including Lake Down, Wauseon Bay, and the interconnecting waterway, as Outstanding Florida Waters. The baseline for all of the Butler Chain, except two unrelated waterbodies, is the year ending March 1, 1984.
Rule 17-312.080(3) states that no permit shall be issued for dredging or filling if the activity is within an Outstanding Florida Water unless the applicant complies with Section 403.918(2) and Rule 17-4.242. Rule 17- 4.242(2)(a) states that "[n]o [DER] permit . . . shall be issued for any proposed activity within an Outstanding Florida Waters . . . unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that:
2. The proposed activity of discharge is clearly in the public interest, and . . .
* * *
b. The existing ambient water quality within Outstanding Florida Waters will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity or discharge, except on a temporary basis during construction for a period not to exceed thirty days . . ..
Rule 17-4.242(2)(c) defines "existing ambient water quality" as the better of: 1) the water quality that "could reasonably have been expected to have existed for the baseline year of an Outstanding Florida Water designation" or 2) the water quality that existed during the year prior to the date of a permit application. "Existing ambient water quality" shall include "daily, seasonal, and other cyclic fluctuations." As noted above, the relevant existing ambient water quality for LakeDown is the baseline year.
Additional water quality standards applicable in this case are set forth in Rules 17-302.500, 17-302.510, and 17-302.560.
Rule 17-302.510 sets general criteria for surface waters outside mixing zones. Rule 17-302.560 establishes stricter criteria for Class III waters. Under Rule 17-302.600(1) and (3)(c)48., Lake Down and the entire Butler Chain are Class III waters. Rule 17-302.560(19) states: "In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna."
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not result in a violation of applicable ambient water quality standards.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
In 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So. 2d 946, (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(per curiam) rev. den. 562 So. 2d
345 (Fla. 1990), the court stated that, in a dredge and fill case:
it was the hearing officer's function to make findings of fact regarding factual issues underlying the conditions set by DER and the implementation of and compliance with the mitigative conditions set by DER. The hearing officer was not vested with power to review DER's discretion in setting acceptable mitigative conditions in the sense of passing on their sufficiency to meet the statutory criteria. . . . [A] hearing officer's findings on the sufficiency of the mitigative conditions agreed to by DER and 1800 Atlantic
. . . are properly characterized as conclusions of law.
552 So. 2d at 955.
Special Condition 7 does not materially assist Orange County in providing reasonable assurances concerning water quality and public interest.
In the first place, Special Condition 7 has no effect whatsoever on dock dredging, which will take place a considerable portion of the time based on past experience. In addition, Special Condition 7 will have little effect on the prop wash that would take place throughout the lake if the dock were built.
In any event, Special Condition 7 is too vague to assist the County in providing reasonable assurances concerning water quality and public interest. The condition is so vaguethat it may not even be enforceable. But if the interpretation of DER's expert were to prevail, so that the entire dock and ramp would be closed at water elevations of less than 95 feet, significant damage to submerged bottoms would take place prior to closure.
As noted above, suggestions that the dock could be moved lakeward of its proposed location were vague and never crystallized into a formal request to amend the application. If such suggestions qualify as a proffer of a mitigative condition, the condition is concluded to be insufficient.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the application of the Orange County Parks Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating dock 420 feet by 7 feet.
ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1991.
APPENDIX
Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Orange County Adopted or adopted in substance:
1-7 (except last sentence of Paragraph 6); 9 (except for last two sentences)-
11 (except first sentence); 12 (except that the amendment eliminated all construction-related dredging)-19 (except the railing in Paragraph 14 runs the entire landward side of the floating dock, but not the fixed docks); 20 (except the last sentence); 25; 27 (except last sentence); 29 (first sentence; however, the implication that the erosion is having an adverse effect on water quality is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 30 (except that the implication that wave and wake action are presently eroding the shore is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 32; 33 (in sense of increasing boater usage of lake, but not in sense of maintaining the water conditions on which the lake ultimately depends for its recreational value);
35-36; 39 (third and fourth sentences); 40 (there would be a net increase in upland safety); 42 (the crosswalk would somewhat increase upland user safety); 43; 44 (through the colon); 46; 48 (second and third sentences); 49 (except that the summer, 1990, findings of Windermere's expert are also credited); 51 (except as to the improvement in ambient water quality between baseline year and year immediately preceding the application); 52 (except for characterization of chlorophyll a value as very low) with attendant implication that this value, in conjunction with readings of .04-.05 mg/l of phosphate in the summer of 1990, is not cause for serious concern); 56-57; 59 (all but first sentence); 60 (second and third sentences); and 71 (last sentence).
Rejected as irrelevant:
6 (last sentence); 11 (first sentence); 20 (last sentence); 21-22; 26 (second sentence); 28; 44 (following the colon)-45; 47; 54 (first sentence);
55 (there is no safe harbor for proposed projects whoseeffects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition); 67; and 74-75.
Rejected as subordinate:
8; 9 (last two sentences); 28; 34 (second sentence); 41; 53; 63 (except
for first sentence); 64; 69; and 74-75.
Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence:
23; 26 (first sentence); 27 (last sentence); 29 (second sentence); 31; 34 (except second sentence); 37 (except whether the proposed dock is a political "hot potato" is irrelevant); 38 (except that the existing facility is "very mediocre"); 50 (second sentence as to relevant ambient water quality and third sentence); 54; 55 (although the water quality in Lake Down remains generally good, recent readings of phosphorus levels of .04-.05 mg/l are a cause of serious concern); 58; 59 (first sentence, at least as to the bottom beginning around where the dock would be placed); 60 (first sentence); 61 (the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 62 (strictly speaking, the County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat dock will not lead to degradation in ambient water quality); and 63 (first sentence)-71 (except for last sentence).
Rejected as unnecessary:
39 (first two sentences) and 72-73.
Rejected as recitation of evidence:
48 (first sentence) and 50 (first and second sentences except for the identification of the baseline year and the year immediately preceding the application).
Miscellaneous:
24: first sentence is adopted in substance as the average is probably about 10', although the distance is as much as 17'. The second sentence as to where the boat dock could be built--i.e., further away from theshore to reduce or eliminate dock dredging--is rejected as irrelevant. Orange County did not offer to amend its application, nor even provide a new location for the dock. In any event, the relocation of the dock in deeper water would not reduce the damage done to the lake by the prop wash associated with the additional boat traffic that the new dock would generate.
Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER Adopted or adopted in substance:
1-5 (except erosion-protection clause in Paragraph 4); 6 (first sentence, although the elevations have been discussed in detail in the findings and, though the dock probably averages about 10' from normal shoreline, it is as much as 17' offshore); 7-14 (except, as to Paragraph 8, 41-65 launchings represents typical summertime usage and 395 represents peak usage, probably on a holiday); 18; 19 (second sentence); 26-28; 30 (first sentence); 33-34; 37-39 (except, as to Paragraph 38, first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 41-42; and 46-47.
Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence:
4 (erosion-protection clause);
6 (second sentence because the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 15 (except second and fourth sentences); 16 (first sentence); 17; 19 (first and second sentences); 25; 29-32 (except first sentence of Paragraph 30); 35; 36 (except first sentence); 38 (first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 40; and 43-44.
Rejected as recitation of evidence:
(second and fourth sentences).
Rejected as irrelevant:
(second through fourth sentences) and 19 (third sentence--there is no safe harbor forproposed projects whose effects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition--and last sentence).
Rejected as unnecessary:
19 (last sentence as to benzene); 21-23 (except that the facts of this case, such as the quick elimination of benzene from the water and the proximity of sampling to boat periods of numerous boat launches and no rain, suggest that gasoline-powered boats, not stormwater, are responsible for most of the benzene finding its way into Lake Down); 24-25; and 45.
Rejected as subordinate:
20.
Rejected as repetitious:
36 (first sentence).
Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Windermere Adopted or adopted in substance:
1-14 (except last sentence of Paragraph 11); 18-19; 26 (first and last sentences); 28 (first three sentences through "not be floating" and third and second to last sentences, although the prospect of either DER or orange County interpreting Special Condition 7 as requiring the closure of the entire facility for significant periods of time is highly remote); 33-34; 35 (as to intention to construct crosswalk); 38; 40 (first three sentences); 42 (first three sentences); 46 (first sentence); 49 (second sentence); 50 (except second sentence); 51 (first sentence); 52 (except last sentence); 54-57; 59 (first two sentences)-61 (except for final sentences in Paragraphs 60, as to benzene, and 61); 62; 65 (last sentence); and 67.
Rejected as subordinate:
11 (last sentence); 15-17; 21-25; 27; 28 (all sentences not adopted in whole); 29-32; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 36-37;
39; 40 (last sentence); 42 (last three sentences); 43-45; 46 (fourth
sentence); 48; 49 (third and fourth sentences); 63; 65 (except last
sentence); and 68-71. Rejected as irrelevant:
16; 20; 22; 49 (first sentence); and 53. Rejected as recitation of evidence:
26 (all but first and last sentences); 31; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 41; 44-45; and 46 (second and third sentences).
Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence:
28 (portion of third sentence following "not be floating"; Orange County's position as to the meaning of Special Condition 7 did not emerge from the record, largely because of an apparent lack of detailed understanding of the impact upon the submerged bottoms of particular water elevations in terms of dock dredging and prop dredging); 50 (second sentence); 51 (second sentence); 64; and 66.
Rejected as unnecessary:
47; 52 (last sentence); 58-59 (last two sentences); 60 (as to benzene); and
61.
Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Rosser and Grice Adopted or adopted in substance:
1-39 (as to Paragraph 18, the only navigable connection and, as to Paragraph 19, the surface elevation); 45; 51 (at least as to desirability); 57 (except first sentence); 58; 59; 61-64 (except last sentence of Paragraph 64); 66
(second sentence); 68-69; 74 (fourth sentence); 75-76; 80-81; 83; 86; 88;
89 (the specific elevations have been discussed in detail in the order); 94; 96; 97; and 102.
Rejected as irrelevant:
40-42; 52-55; 70-72; 74 (third and last sentences); 77-78; 84; 90; 101;
and 103.
Rejected as subordinate:
43-44; 46-50; 53-55; 57 (first sentence); 60; 73-74 (first and second
sentences); 82 (first sentence); 85; 99-100; and 104-05. Rejected as unnecessary:
56; 59; 64 (last sentence)-66 (first sentence); 91-92; 95; and 98. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence:
67; 82 (second sentence); 87; and 93.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas H. Maclaughlin Assistant General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Joel D. Prinsell, Assistant County Attorney Eugene Legette, Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department
P.O. Box 1393
Orlando, FL 32802-1393
J. Christy Wilson, III Brigham, Moore, et al.
111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1575 Orlando, FL 32801
J. Stephen McDonald John M. Robertson
Robertson, Williams, et al.
538 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801
Robert W. Williams
P.O. Box 247 Windermere, FL 34786
Carl D. Patterson, Jr.
219 Third Avenue Windermere, FL 34786
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 02, 1991 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 02, 1991 | Recommended Order | No dredge and fill permit to build 420 ft floating dock where permit condition inadequately addresses water quality issues from prop-dock dredging in Outstanding Florida Waters |
