The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a statement promulgated by an employee or representative of the Respondent, Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), by letter of April 2, 1991, and the later adoption or ratification of that opinion by the Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board"), by resolution of June 12, 1991, constitutes an unpromulgated rule or amendment of a rule and thus whether it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a dredge and fill permit from DER. If the application is approved, the Petitioner intends to construct a 490-foot elevated driveway or timber bridge across Clam Bayou from the Sanibel-Captiva Island Road to Silver Key, on and in the vicinity of Sanibel Island in Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner proposes to construct the bridge so as to allegedly provide reasonable access to the property upon which he intends to construct residences. A number of protests to that application before DER have been filed and the petitions related to that application are now pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings in Case Nos. 91- 1320 through 91-1324. The Board is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 253.02, Florida Statutes, and consists of the Governor and Cabinet. Generally, title to submerged lands underlying navigable waters is vested in the Board pursuant to Section 253.03, Florida Statutes. The Board is authorized to approve activities in the preserve by Section 258.42, Florida Statutes. DNR is an agency of the State of Florida and serves as the staff of the Board. When DER reviewed the Petitioner's dredge and fill permit application, it determined that Clam Bayou was not within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, an aquatic preserve created by act of the Legislature in 1975 and codified at Subsection 258.39(22), Florida Statutes. However, on April 2, 1991, DNR, through an employee or representative in its Fort Myers district office, sent a letter to the City of Sanibel ("City"), the Petitioner in Case No. 91- 1324, advising the City that the proposed project was within the boundaries of the preserve. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: To follow up our recent discussions regarding the referenced file, I requested that the department's title and land records section in Tallahassee `re-review' the project site to determine if it is actually in the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. As you know, the title and land records section initially determined that the project site was not within the aquatic preserve. In response to my request, Kathy Miklus, planner, title and land records section, provided me with information indicating that the project site is indeed within the boundaries of Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. Copies of that information are enclosed. Therefore, it would appear that the application will be subject to the applicable criteria of Section 258.42, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code, regarding activities in aquatic preserves. However, as we previously discussed, the application is currently `on hold' because of the coastal island moratorium adopted in 1989 by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and may be subject to the pending rule amendments regarding sovereignty, submerged lands surrounding coastal islands, if those rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the Board of Trustees... DNR is the agency charged with administering the aquatic preserve program, its preserves, and with resolving issues concerning the boundaries of those preserves. Thus, the effect of the letter, if it were to become final agency action, would be to impose a more restrictive body of rules on the Petitioner concerning his entitlement to the DER permit sought from DER because if the site in question were determined to be within the preserve, it would, under the applicable rules of DER, be deemed to be within Outstanding Florida Waters. The Petitioner thus filed the petition which initiated this proceeding, contending, in essence, that the statement in the letter (as adopted by the Board) amounts to an illicit, unpromulgated rule, including the contention that it constitutes an improper repeal or amendment of the existing Rule 18- 20.002(7)(a)19., Florida Administrative Code. The questioned language in the letter at issue and under challenge reads as follows: The project site is indeed within the boundaries of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. According to the Petitioner, this language enlarges upon or amends the existing rule cited above which describes the preserve as follows: Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official Records of Lee County in Book 648, pages 732-736. The document recorded at the referenced Official Record Book and page numbers is the Board's Resolution No. 70-25, the document establishing the preserve and containing the legal description of its boundaries. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent's statement reflected in the above-quoted portion of the letter is a new statement of the boundary of the preserve, and it is materially different than the rule-adopted, recorded boundary description. Thus, the Petitioner asserts that the agency has clearly amended its rule describing the preserve. The statement in the letter, however, does not constitute a new statement of the boundaries of the preserve but rather the opinion of agency personnel, adopted by the Board, concerning what the already- adopted and recorded boundary description means in the view of the agency as to whether a specific site and project is included within those already-adopted boundaries. It was not proven in this proceeding that the agency statement referenced above evidences any intent to amend or change the legal description of the preserve as recorded in the Official Records of Lee County, Florida, and as codified in the above-cited rule. Rather, it represents an interpretation of that existing rule and its existing boundary description by DNR and, specifically, amounts to an interpretation concerning whether the Petitioner's property is located within the legal boundaries as presently codified in that rule.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One, Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met. However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality, causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's Intent to Issue. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be permitted in the proposed project. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which have not been treated by heavy metals. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle, any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a result, the public health and safety are protected. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related activities in the Jupiter Sound. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses. Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs, directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any seagrasses located in the proposed project area. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely affected is also a factor to be considered. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992 and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends to die off and at its thinnest in the winter. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or endangered species of seagrasses. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain. Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants provide food for other organisms. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project, the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse affects from prop dredging. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and approximately one percent of actual coverage. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project. Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the proposed project. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are located. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including the Petitioners. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation. The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of Intent and has no objection to the proposed project. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore, benefited. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not significantly or measurably further violate the water quality. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 8th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27, 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. See, conclusion of law 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33 Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41. Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35 Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Jurgens, Esquire Post Office Box 1178 Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 1218 Mount Vernon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire Scott Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina) Lynette L. Ciardulli Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue As stated by the Hearing Officer the issue in this case is whether the District should issue a surface water management permit to Russell E. and Marilyn F. Scott, and Caloosa Television Corporation for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a television signal tower and control building in Southeast Lee County, Florida. There are no significant water resource impacts related to the management of surface water by the proposed project. The harm at issue in this case is the potential for wood storks and other wading to strike the tower and guy wires which are not structures related to management and storage of waters. The parties disagree as to whether the District has jurisdiction to consider the bird impacts related to collisions with the tower and guy wires, and if so, whether the tower and guy wires will have a significant adverse impact on the water resources of the state through a reduction of wood storks, an endangered species, and other wading birds which through feeding on fish remove biomass from such water, thereby maintaining water quality. In determining jurisdiction in this case, the parties disagree on the meaning of "works" and "surface water management system" as used in Chapter 373, F.S. and Rule 40E-4, F.A.C. The petitioners argue that since one set of guy wires will be placed across one end of the cypress wetland located on the subject property, the entire project including the guy wire and tower is a "works" and part of the surface water management system, which is subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. The District and respondent Caloosa Television Corporation contend that the tower and guy wires are not structures related to surface water management and are not "works" nor part of the surface water management system, and therefore, bird mortality, as a result of hitting the tower and guy wires, is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. FINDINGS ON EXCEPTIONS At the Governing Board meeting of October 6, 1988, the petitioners waived Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 of Petitioners' Exceptions to Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order. Therefore, Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 are rejected. The petitioners' exceptions 1, 2, and 3 to Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order are rejected as set forth in the District's Response To Exceptions Filed by Petitioners filed on September 27, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and made part of this Final Order. The Governing Board accepts the exceptions filed by the District and the respondent, Caloosa Television Corporation, as set forth herein under Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 14, 1987, Caloosa filed Application Number 09147- B, for a surface water management permit, with the District. This application was for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 1249 foot high television transmission tower and control building in southeast Lee County, Florida. The proposed location of Caloosa's project is approximately one mile north of the boundary of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which is owned and operated by Audubon, and specifically, approximately two and one-half miles north of a wood stork colony located within the Sanctuary. This rookery is the largest rookery of wood stork, a federally endangered wading bird, in the United States. The project site is 60 acres in size, and approximately square in shape. It is improved agricultural land, with a circular cypress wetland of about 5.5 acres located near the center of the site. Extending outward from the cypress wetland are two ditches, one running due east and the other due west. The existing surface water flow varies with the seasons and intensity of storm events. During dry seasons, the rainfall runoff flows into the cypress wetland and percolates into the ground. However, during wet seasons, water builds up in the cypress wetland and flows into the two ditches. In larger storm events, the project site is entirely under water, and sheet flows occur to the southwest. The proposed project should have a negligible impact on the existing surface water system since the total impervious area will only be approximately one acre, or 1.7 percent of the total project area of 60 acres. The project consists of a radio tower and guy wires, a 3150 square foot control building, fill pad and parking area, guy wire anchor slabs, and approximately 1650 feet of lime rock road with an equalizer culvert to maintain existing flow. Three sets of six guy wires will extend from the 1249 foot high tower and connect to the ground at anchor slabs located near the edge of the project site. The entire project is located outside of the limits of the existing wetland, but one set of guy wires does cross the western edge of the cypress wetland. Caloosa proposes to use the tower as a "community tower" which will be capable of supporting more than one transmitting antennae. In addition to Caloosa's antennae, the tower will be able to support up to five commercial radio stations and up to sixty two-way communication antennae. Caloosa has had contacts from several commercial radio stations and governmental agencies which have expressed interest in co-locating their antennae on Caloosa's tower. After review of this application, District staff advised Caloosa, on November 23, 1987, that it was recommending approval of the application since it was felt that any impact from the project on wood storks would not result from the construction and operation of this project. At hearing, the District supported the issuance of this permit, but urged that the tower and guy wires are not a part of the surface water management system over which the District has any permitting jurisdiction. Audubon timely filed its request for a hearing on the District's intent to issue this permit, and at hearing opposed the issuance of this permit to Caloosa, urging that the tower and guy wires were an integral part of the surface water management system, and therefore subject to the District's permitting jurisdiction. The wood stork and other wading birds are an important link in the biological and ecological chain. They are the main mechanism for removing certain species of fish from ponds, lakes and waters of the state. If there is no predation by wading birds, then an increase in the biomass of the water system would be expected, water quality would decrease, and fish kills would result. Ponds that receive biomass reduction by wading birds have a reduction in fish biomass of approximately 75%, with no loss in species, while ponds that do not receive wading bird predation lose almost all individual aquatic animals through reduced water quality resulting from retention of up to 94% of the biomass from dead fish. The reduction in biomass is in direct proportion to the number of birds feeding in a pond, and therefore a 5% reduction in birds will result in a 5% lessening of the biomass reduction. Water quality will be reduced by a lowering of oxygen levels in such waters due to the excessive retention of nutrient laden biomass. During the nesting season, wood storks feed in various ponds and wetland areas that surround the rookery. Their primary feeding areas are within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of these sites allow the birds to make several flights per day between the colony and the feeding site, and to do so with less energy expended than with feeding sites that are farther away. Caloosa's project site is located between the rookery and a primary feeding area to the north that is within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of this feeding area allows the birds to fly low, at tree top level, to the site, without the use of thermal updrafts that they use to attain altitudes of up to 5000 feet when traveling greater distances. Thus, if the tower is built, it would be likely that wood storks would fly in the direction of, and at the height of, the tower to reach this primary feeding area. However, it was not established how many such birds actually feed in this nearby area, or how many fish are in these ponds and wetlands. The wood stork colony at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary has been experiencing a decline in productivity from approximately 6000 nesting pairs in 1960 and 1966, there has been a steady decline in the number of nesting pairs in the colony, and in 1987, there were no nesting pairs in the colony. During 1988, 750 nesting pairs have been observed. The steady decline in the wood stork colony population is the result of already existing developmental pressures and changes in drainage patterns which have adversely affected the birds' feeding habitats. For nesting to be successful, two adult birds are required per nest during the nesting season, which usually occurs from November to March. This allows one adult bird to be away from the nest obtaining food while the other adult keeps the nest warm and safe from predators. If a nest is left unattended through the loss of one adult bird, it is likely that the entire nest will be lost since the fledglings are very vulnerable throughout the nesting season to predators and changes in temperature. There are usually two or three fledglings per nest. For this reason, the loss of five adult birds per year, for example, results in a total loss to the colony of between ten to fifteen fledglings. This loss compounds each year, as birds lost one year are not available to reproduce in following years. Generally, transmission towers can pose a hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Illuminating such towers at night does not decrease this danger since the birds are simply attracted to lights. Strobe lighting has also been tried, but it appears that birds ignore, or are not deterred, by strobes. In this case, Caloosa has agreed to accept conditions placed upon the approval of this project by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustments on March 16, 1987, which include placement of aircraft warning balls on the guy wires and the tower itself, habitat improvement including the creation of a wetland and a wildlife through way, if necessary, and commencement of a monitoring system to identify any problems with wood stork mortality as soon as possible. A very extensive study of bird kills and transmission towers was conducted over a thirty year period involving the WCTV tower in Tallahassee, Florida. The WCTV tower was found to kill 3.9 wading birds per year on average. Based in part upon this data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that wood stork collisions with the tower will not result in significant mortality, and an "incidental take" of five wood storks per year should result. This is a level of mortality which is noteworthy, since any loss to an endangered species is significant, but is clearly below that which would cause jeopardy to the species. Although Audubon correctly pointed out that the conditions present in the WCTV study do not exactly match those present in this case, such as the fact that there are almost three times as many wading birds in the area of the Caloosa tower as were in the area of the WCTV tower, as well as the differences in the geographical relationship of the tower to nearby wading bird colonies and feeding areas, nevertheless, the WCTV study is relevant and should be considered by the District since it is the most exhaustive study of its kind ever conducted. Caloosa presented evidence of a study it conducted over approximately a one month period in May and June, 1988, of a comparable existing radio tower, the WHEW tower, located near the subject property to the east. Although substantial wood stork and other wading bird activity was observed around the WHEW tower, there were no collisions of wood storks with this 1010 foot high tower. While not a scientific study in the strictest sense, and although it was not conducted for as extensive a period as the WCTV study, nevertheless, the District should consider the WHEW study conducted by Caloosa since it involves a comparable tower in close proximity to the subject property, and the person who conducted the study for Caloosa and who testified at hearing, Robert E. Gatton, appeared particularly credible. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the location of Caloosa's tower. I5. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has recommended that the proposed location for Caloosa's tower be changed to an alternate site which would present a less serious obstacle to the Corkscrew wood stork nesting colony and other wading birds. This recommendation is based on the policy that the mortality of even one wood stork is too much and may present a danger to the population of the wood stork rookery. It was not shown, however, that a basis in fact exists for concluding that the loss of five or fewer wood storks per year would present such a danger. The Commission's recommendation is also based upon a concern that transmission towers will proliferate in the area, and thereby further interfere with the flight paths of wood storks and other wading birds to their feeding locations. However, the fact that Caloosa is seeking to construct a "community tower" to be shared with several governmental agencies, as well as broadcasting stations, will actually serve to decrease this potential proliferation. While there is a potential for wood storks or other wading birds in the area to be killed or injured by striking Caloosa's tower or the guy wires while in flight, the extent of this danger is speculative, but would not appear to exceed five wood storks per year. Under these circumstances, there would not be a significant threat to the population, or continued viability, of the Corkscrew rookery. It has not been shown, by the evidence in this record, that any loss of wood storks and other wading birds caused by this project will result in fish kills through a significant reduction of predation and the resulting failure to remove accumulated biomass in ponds and waters in the area. It was not demonstrated that a fish kill will, or is even likely, to occur. While the loss of five wood storks would result in a certain amount of biomass not being removed from the area's wetlands, nothing in the record suggests that this amount will have an adverse impact on the state's water resources or will otherwise be significant. Therefore, any relationship between the tower proposed by Caloosa and impacts associated with biomass accumulation is purely speculative and de minimis. Fish kills occur naturally as water levels in seasonal marshes and ponds lower in the dry season. The water quality impact of such kills is relatively short-lived, lasting up to two months or until the next wet season begins, at which time water quality parameters return to normal. The evidence produced at hearing does not establish that the project and its surface water management system will have any significant or measurable effect on drainage of surface water runoff from the subject property, or on adjacent properties. The drainage system proposed by Caloosa will utilize the existing ditches and the natural cypress pond on the property. It was established that the post-construction effect of the project on drainage would be insignificant. There are, therefore, no drainage impacts associated with this project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order approving Caloosa's application for surface water management permit number 09147-B, subject to the conditions, agreed to by Caloosa, which were imposed by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustment in its approval of this proposed development. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5578 Rulings on Audubon's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a summation of testimony. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12-15. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 12, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13, and otherwise as simply a summation of the testimony and argument on the evidence. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 22-23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15-17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Caloosa's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted In Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law and as simply a summation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and as cumulative. Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding-of Fact I. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 James K. Sturgis, Esquire Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John R. Wodraska Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 =================================================================
The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue at this stage of the proceeding is whether jurisdiction should be relinquished to the Southwest Florida Water Management District based upon the withdrawal of Petitions filed herein on behalf of the Petitioners, and the filing of a stipulation and settlement agreement executed on behalf of the Petitioners and Respondents.
Findings Of Fact By Notices of Referral dated June 7, 1989, and filed June 1 6, 1989, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) certain Petitions filed on behalf of Petitioners which opposed the issuance of a consumptive use permit numbered 208426 by the District to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority). These Petitions were assigned Case Numbers 89-3187 through 89-3189 by DOAH, and were consolidated for all further proceedings. On August 18, 1989, Chilpub, Inc. (Chilpub), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on September 6, 1989. On October 20, 1989, Wiregrass Ranch, Inc. (Wiregrass), filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted by Order entered on October 31, 1989. The Petitions filed on behalf of Chilpub and Wiregrass were filed at DOAH, and specifically sought leave to intervene in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 in order to oppose the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Following the granting of these Petitions, Chilpub and Wiregrass have participated in this proceeding as Intervenors On or about November 8, 1989, the Authority provided Wiregrass with a copy of the Notice of Proposed Agency Action which is the subject of this proceeding, pursuant to Rule 40D-2.101, Florida Administrative Code. However, subsequent to receiving this Notice of Proposed Agency Action, Wiregrass failed to file with the District any Petition in its own right seeking to initiate a proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the issuance of permit number 208426 to the Authority. Notices of Withdrawal of Petitions for Formal Hearing were filed on behalf of the Petitioners in Cases Numbered 89-3187 through 89-3189 on April 4, 1990, and on that same date, the Petitioners and Respondents filed their Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction. A copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement executed by the Petitioners and Respondents was filed on April 9, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions filed herein, and issuing permit number 208426 to the Authority. DONE AND ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 120 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Smith, Esquire Jeffrey A. Aman, Esquire 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Barbara B. Levin, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33602 Bram Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Enola T. Brown, Esquire P. O. Box 3350 Tampa, FL 33601-3350 James S. Moody, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box TT Plant City, FL 33564-9040 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve whether the Respondent, St. Joe Paper Company ("St. Joe"), is entitled to a "dredge and fill permit" authorizing it to construct a marina for recreational boats, containing 84 boat slips, along the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. Embodied within that general consideration are issues involving whether St. Joe, in the construction and operation of the marina, can comply with water-quality parameters embodied in Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code, for Class III waters of the State, Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, as well as the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and the standard concerning "cumulative impact" embodied in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, St. Joe, seeks to construct and operate a recreational boat marina, consisting of a single, main pier, 12 feet wide and extending some 850 feet waterward in a westerly direction from the shoreline of the east bank of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The main pier will join a terminal pier extending approximately 575 feet in a general north/south direction parallel to the shoreline of the St. Johns River, perpendicular to and abutting the longer main pier. Extended in a landward or easterly direction from the terminal pier structure will be four (4) individual "finger piers" ranging from 119 to 305 feet in length. Located along the individual piers and along a portion of the main pier near the waterward end of it will be 84 slips for recreational-type boats. Additionally, a breakwater system will be suspended along the outer perimeter of the terminal pier and northernmost and southernmost individual piers in order to reduce wave action and its effect on boats in the interior of the marina. Additional details concerning the marina design and operation are contained in the findings of fact below. The Site The site of the proposed marina is on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. At that point, the St. Johns River is almost two miles wide, being approximately 10,000 feet from shoreline to shoreline. The proposed marina site encompasses approximately 1,100 linear feet of river bank frontage. All of the adjacent upland property is owned by St. Joe, and St. Joe owns extensive additional river frontage to the north and south of the marina site. The nearest properties not owned by St. Joe are located 3,500 feet to the north of the site and 1,500 feet to the south of the site. The site is located approximately two miles north of Hallowes Cove, a relatively pristine, diverse and productive marine habitat. The site is characterized, landward of the terminal end of the pier and waterward of the upland, by an unvegetated "near shore area or tidal zone" which extends approximately 50 feet from the mean high-water line of the river to the mean low-water line. Waterward of this zone and extending to a depth of approximately two feet is a system of grass beds, (vallisnerida), commonly known as "tape grass". The grass beds extend approximately 200 to 250 feet from the shoreline. Waterward of the grass beds is an unvegetated area with a gradual slope to a depth of approximately six feet. From the six-foot contour of the river bottom, a relatively precipitous slope begins, extending to depths which exceed 19 feet. In this zone, there are no grass beds. Further waterward and extending beyond the most waterward extent of the the marina site, the river bottom rises somewhat to depths of 13 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet, in the direction of the center of the river. The river bottom substrate in the area of the marina is composed primarily of sand. This includes some shell and other coarse materials, with minor amounts of silt. In fact, organic silt is a very small portion of the bottom sediments, consisting, at a depth of four and one-half feet, of less than 1% silt and at a depth of 15 feet of less than 6% silt content. The present water quality prevailing at the marina site is good, and the benthic habitat in the general area is healthy and diverse. The most landward boat slips proposed at the marina will be located at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the most waterward extent of the grass beds. These most landward slips will be located in depths of approximately eight feet. Access to the marina will be from the north and south in defined channels marked on the west by the end of the individual piers and on the east by channel markers located at the depth contour of minus six feet. That is, the six-foot depth will be the most shallow portion of the channel marked by the channel markers, so that boats will not be permitted to navigate the shallower portion landward of the channel markers insofar as the marina's enforcement program can insure that. The approximate width of the northern channel is 75 feet, and the width of the southern channel is 50 feet. Due to the precipitous drop in depth beyond the contour of minus six feet, the average depth of the channels is 10 to 12 feet. The majority of the boat slips, as well as the basin of the marina, will be located in depths of between 10 and 18 feet. The consultant and expert witness who designed the marina, Erik Olsen, established that the length of the main pier and the location of the most landward of the boat slips and the location of the channel markers are all part of a design and plan intended to insure that marina and boat activity within the marina occur well beyond the extant grass beds and waterward of depths of six feet, to insure that no damage to the grass bed habitat area is occasioned by propeller scouring, "prop-wash", or grounding of boats. Other design measures are also intended to preclude boaters from entering the shallow depths and grass bed areas. Two tiers of signs will be located between the marina basin and the most waterward extent of the grass beds. First, regulatory buoys and signs are proposed to be located at the contour of minus four feet and will establish a "manatee protection zone" landward of that contour. The evidence reveals, however, that a safer contour for the manatee protection zone boundary to be established by the applicant would dictate placing the regulatory warning signs concerning the manatee protection zone at the same contour, minus six feet of water, where the channel markers will be located. This is because the marina will serve boats of up to 4.5 feet in draught. Secondly, a tier of signs will be located approximately ten feet waterward of the most waterward extent of the grass beds warning boaters that aquatic grass beds exist landward of the signs and that prop dredging and boat operation is prohibited. Such warnings at the locations found above should be mandatory conditions to any grant of the permit. A specific, agreed-upon condition is already in the draft permit issued by the Department prescribing the size and lettering of these signs and other design details. A railing will extend, as proposed by the applicant, along the main pier between the slips and the shoreline to discourage boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the slips. The evidence establishes that in order to more adequately insure protection of the manatee habitat area and the grass beds, a mandatory condition in boat-slip rental leases should be inserted to absolutely prohibit boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the boat slips. Because of the currents and significant water depth prevailing at the marina site, the marina construction will require no dredging nor will operation and maintenance of the marina require any dredging on a continuing basis. Additionally, in the interest of protecting water quality, no fueling facilities or boat fueling will be permitted at the marina at all; and the grant of a permit should be mandatorily conditioned on this basis. Neither will any boat maintenance or repair be permitted at the marina, including no hauling of boats or scraping or painting of boat bottoms. This condition should be clearly pointed out to users of the marina by appropriate warning signs regarding the prohibition against boat maintenance and repair, including warnings concerning the proper methods of disposal of used oil and other petroleum products. The marina will feature pump-out facilities for boat heads and bilges. The pump-out facilities will consist of a central pumping system in which waste is removed from the boats, transported by pipeline to an upland, central waste water collection and treatment system. No holding tanks or other storage of wastes will be located at the piers. The pump-out facility will serve not only the boat heads but also boat bilges in order to prevent contaminants, such as oil and boat fuel from entering the State waters involved. The piers will feature trash collection containers of appropriate number, size and location on the piers so as to provide convenient trash disposal for each boat slip. The piers will also feature plastic modular dock boxes to preclude boaters from randomly storing materials and equipment on the piers. No fish cleaning will be permitted on the piers at all, but rather must be accomplished on the uplands, with disposal of related wastes in the upland collection system. A "no wake" zone will be established in an area extending 500 feet north and 500 feet south of the marina. The "no wake" zone will be marked pursuant to requirements of the Florida Marine Patrol. The marked "no wake" zone should also extend waterward of the farthest waterward extent of the marina, as well as 500 feet north and south of it. Only private, recreational boats will be moored at the marina. All commercial boats will be prohibited. The marina will serve a Yacht Club to be developed by St. Joe in conjunction with the marina. Only members of the Yacht Club and their guests will be permitted to use the marina. This will assist with enforcement of the various conditions on marina operation and maintenance by the owners as to the boat-slip lessees and their guests. This and all other conditions should be enforced by mandatory restrictions in the boat-slip leases. Likewise, the applicant has agreed to permit no "liveaboard" boats at the marina in order to avoid the possibility of sewage or other contaminants entering the State waters from liveaboard boats. The upland facilities will include restrooms, and signs should be appropriately placed on the piers to advise boaters and boat owners and operators of the availability of restroom facilities. The marina will not feature fueling facilities; however, St. Joe will maintain pollution containment supplies and equipment at the marina sufficient to contain any potential fuel or other petroleum spills from catastrophic events, such as the rupture of a boat fuel tank. Expert witnesses for St. Joe established that a "management and operational plan" designed to enforce the provisions enumerated above will be enacted by the applicant. The management and operational plan includes three mechanisms of enforcement: Warning signs. Boat-slip lease agreements which must incorporate all restrictions found to be necessary herein. These will contain an enforcement provision providing for mandatory eviction from use and lease of the marina facilities for any breach of those conditions by lessees or their guests. Management personnel will be employed on the marina property to enforce all restrictions and conditions designed to insure environmentally-safe operation and maintenance of the marina, and such personnel should be employed during all operating hours of the marina, not just during daylight hours, as proposed by the applicant. Signs will be posted at conspicuous locations at the marina and at the upland facilities of the Yacht Club informing boaters of the marina rules and prohibitions. The signage will be visible to Yacht Club members and their guests using the marina, and members' guests will be required, upon mooring at the marina, to register and to review the rules and prohibitions. Boat-slip lease agreements at the marina will incorporate these marina rules and prohibitions. Under the lease agreements, a violation of the marina rules or prohibitions by a member or guest will be considered a breach of the lease and will result in revocation of the lease and removal of the member's boat from the marina. A dock master will be employed at the marina to supervise the operation and maintenance of the marina and will be assisted by dock hands and other personnel in order to see that the conditions and restrictions referenced herein are enforced. The applicant has proposed such personnel being employed during daylight hours. However, in order to insure that the standards for operation and maintenance of the marina and boats using it will be enforced so as to avoid water-quality violations and violations of the public interest parameters delineated below, the permit grant should be conditioned upon such personnel being employed during all operating hours of the marina, whether daylight hours or not. If this is accomplished, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the management and operational plan will reasonably insure enforcement of the marina's rules, prohibitions and conditions on any grant of the permit and likewise reasonably insure that water-quality and public interest standards are not violated. Upland Facilities The upland and Yacht Club facilities to be developed in conjunction with the marina will be located on approximately seven acres adjacent to the marina site. The Yacht Club and related facilities will include a clubhouse, parking, and a storm water treatment system which will serve the upland facilities. St. Joe has obtained a conceptual permit for the management and storage of surface waters for the proposed upland improvements, including the Yacht Club. It will also seek a permit for the storm water treatment system, itself. St. Joe, through its consultants, has investigated and opined that the installation of the proposed upland facilities are feasible and can comply with applicable regulatory criteria and is pursuing the necessary permits and approvals from local governments and state agencies. It will insure that all such is accomplished prior to initiation of construction of the Yacht Club facilities. The precise configuration and design of all upland facilities will be dictated by applicable local ordinances and the requirements of State regulatory agencies. Marina Impacts The applicant/Respondent and the Petitioners are in essential agreement, through the testimony of their witnesses, regarding the general potential impacts which may be posed by marinas in a general sense, when located in proximity to environmentally-sensitive areas. Concerning anticipated impacts of this marina at the subject site, however, St. Joe presented the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as a hydrographic study. It was thus established that violations of the pertinent water-quality statute and rules and the public interest standards contained in the statute referenced herein will not be violated. The Petitioners, although presenting both lay and expert testimony regarding the water quality and habitat type and quality in the general area of the site and the general impacts that can be caused by marinas in such areas, presented no expert testimony or studies regarding the anticipated impacts of this particular marina, as designed and configured by the applicant, on the subject site and aquatic habitat. Water Quality Considerations Marinas are potential sources of pollutants which may adversely impact water quality. Different sources at a marina may generate different pollutants; and in this case, testimony addressed these potential pollutant impacts. The totality of the expert testimony taken at hearing establishes that the marina will not likely cause a violation of applicable water-quality standards. One witness for the Petitioners, Bill Watkins, was accepted as an expert in water quality. In describing potential impacts of the marina, however, he only opined that there "could be some effect on water quality"; however, he did not specifically establish adverse effects on water quality which could be anticipated or reasonably expected regarding violations of applicable standards. Mr. Watkins acknowledged: "As to whether or not that degree of pollution, and that's what we're talking about, degree of impact, would be something that would be, have a significant degradation effect, I could not answer without further site specific studies." Mr. Watkins further described the type of site specific information which would be required for him to make a proper assessment of water-quality impacts, including hydrographics and the nature of the sediments existing at the site. Other witnesses for the Petitioners similarly declined to opine regarding violations of the water-quality standards because site specific information was not available to them. Dr. DeMort, for example, explicitly declined to offer an opinion regarding water-quality violations. The opinions and testimony of the expert witnesses on water quality presented on behalf of St. Joe, as well as by the Department, are accepted in establishing that no water-quality violations by the construction and operation of the marina are anticipated. The reasonable assurance that water-quality violations will not occur through the construction and operation of the marina is illustrated by the unrefuted evidence concerning the hydrographics by which the site is characterized. A knowledge of site hydrographics is necessary to accurately determine potential water-quality impacts. A hydrographic study was prepared by St. Joe through the auspices of its consultant, Olsen Associates Incorporated. The experts who prepared that study testified on behalf of St. Joe at hearing, and a Department witness who reviewed the study testified by deposition. None of the Petitioners' expert witnesses addressed the subject of site hydrographics other than to note that they were an important consideration. Mr. Buckingham was accepted as an expert witness in the area of marine engineering with emphasis on hydrographics. He testified regarding the hydrographic study prepared and submitted by St. Joe. The study involved the collection of data at the site, including the gauging of water surface elevations over a two-day period in December of 1988; the comparison of those elevations to predicted elevations based upon historical data; a measurement of current velocities at the site; a dye study to assess the flow regime at the site; and the gathering of depth soundings and sediment samples to confirm the bathymetry and nature of bottom sediments at the site. The hydrographic study also involved the analysis of the data collected at the site. Hydrographics at the site are composed of two components, the transport of a pollutant by advective currents and the dispersion or diffusion of a pollutant within the water column. The physical transport by advective currents dominates the hydrographic circumstance prevailing at the marina site. A pollutant introduced at the site is more likely to be physically transported away from the site, in addition to being merely dispersed through the water column at the site. This is because of the relatively high current velocities prevailing. Both the transport and dispersion components were analyzed in the study to determine the time and distance necessary to reduce an initial concentration of a hypothetical pollutant to 10% of its initial concentration. A pollutant introduced at the site would be reduced to 10% of its initial concentration in less than seven minutes and within 400 feet of the site on the ebb tide and within 300 feet of the site on the flood tide. Moreover, the "plume" of this hypothetical pollutant would occur in a longshore direction parallel to the shore, as opposed to a direction toward the shore and would be of comparatively narrow width (approximately 30 feet). The hydrographics of this site are such that a complete water exchange will occur in 20 to 30 minutes at any point during the tidal cycle. The evidence thus demonstrated that the site is extremely well flushed by tidal currents. In his deposition, Ken Echternacht, of the Department, testified that data in the hydrographic study was realistic in his experience and that he had no questions or concerns regarding the data and methodology used to confirm that data. In addition to Mr. Buckingham's testimony and the study, itself, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht established that flushing is of no concern and is thoroughly adequate at the site. Dr. Echternacht is the Department's hydrographic engineer, whose function is to review all dredge and fill permit applications which may have impacts upon the hydraulics of surface water systems. He has reviewed approximately 1,500 dredge and fill permit applications. His testimony and that of Mr. Buckingham is accepted, as is that of other Department expert witnesses in establishing the excellent flushing characteristics of the site and that the construction and operation of the marina will not adversely affect the present hydrographic situation at the site, as that relates to establishing that no water quality violations will occur. All marinas are potential sources of pollutants. The first to be addressed involves the installation of the pilings themselves during the construction of the marina. This is a potential source of turbidity. Turbidity involves the suspension of bottom sediments and substrate material in the water column, which can pose, among other problems, the retardation of light penetration through the water column which can have an adverse impact on photosynthesis in marine grass beds. In extreme cases, it can cause the destruction of grass beds through killing of the grass by lack of adequate light penetration, as well as the smothering effect of sediments being deposited upon grasses. The method to be used by St. Joe in installing the pilings will be by "jetting" them into the bottom of the river initially and then driving the pilings into the river bottom to the required depth to support the piers. Witnesses for St. Joe and the Department established that this method will constitute an adequate safeguard to be employed during construction to minimize any turbidity. Any temporary or local turbidity caused by the installation of the pilings will be transitory and will pose no significant water-quality violation; however, turbidity curtains will, be employed, if necessary, by the applicant to control any such turbidity during construction. Another potential source of turbidity at a marina involves the dredging, washing or disturbance of the river bottom caused by boat propellers or boat keels. The evidence demonstrated that the risk of such "prop dredging" or wash at this marina will be negligible due to the design features and conditions at the site, including the channels and channel markers, and particularly by the depth of waters prevailing at the site. The marina basin and boat slips are located in water of sufficient depth to prevent prop dredging or wash. The =average depth of the entrance channels is between 10 and 12 feet. Maneuvering within the marina basin will occur in depths of 10 feet or greater. Although the most landward boat slips are located in depths of approximately eight feet, the average depth within most slips is approximately 10 to 12 feet. These depths are based upon the bathymetric survey of the site and confirmed by random soundings performed during the course of the hydrographic study in evidence. Further, these depths are "mean low water" depths. Mean low water reflects the "lowest expected level" within a 29-day tidal epic. The "mean lower low" level is the lowest expected level over the course of a year. That level prevailing at the site, according to the study, is 0.1 feet lower than mean low water. The maximum draught of boats expected to be moored at the marina is 4.5 feet. Thus, the depths in the marina will allow ample clearance between propellers and keels and the river bottom. The required clearance between boat bottoms and propellers and the river bottom can further be assured by proper placement of boats in the boat slips in the leasing process and in the assignment of boat slips to casual, temporary users of the marina. In other words, the larger boats will be assigned to the deeper, more waterward slips. Other measures include warning signs, which should be placed along the six-foot depth contour, along the landward edge of the entrance channels and beyond the waterward extent of the grass beds. This will insure that boaters do not stray into shallow-water, aquatic habitat areas. A second factor in determining the potential for prop dredging at the marina is the nature of the sediments themselves. Four witnesses, including those testifying for the Department and for the Petitioners, established that the sediments at the site are primarily sand-based, with minimal organic silt content. The sandy nature of the sediments minimizes the potential for turbidity caused by prop dredging or prop washing (hydraulic currents created by propeller operation) because sand, by its density, mass and weight, tends to settle out to the bottom much quicker if it is suspended in the water column. Even if prop dredging did occur at the marina, generating turbidity, the high flushing characteristic of the site would quickly transport and disperse any such turbidity and render it undetectable and likely prevent its deposition on the grass beds. A potential source of pollutants at a marina is boat fuel. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the design and operational features of the marina, primarily the absence of any fueling facilities, will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants generated by fueling operations. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is waste from boat heads and bilges generated by flushing boat heads or pumping out of bilges with bilge pumps. Expert witnesses for St. Joe, as well as the Department, established that the design and operational features with which this marina will be characterized will minimize or eliminate the potential for such pollutants to be generated because liveaboard boats will be prohibited, and the pumping out of heads and bilges will also be prohibited because of the conditions agreed to by the applicant for a grant of this permit. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is the use of anti-fouling paint used on the bottoms of boats and the periodic scraping and repainting of boats. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the operational features and design of this marina will minimize the potential for pollutants from this source because boat painting, sanding, and scraping and other operations attendant to boat painting will be absolutely prohibited at the marina. Finally, another potential source of pollutants would be trash and garbage materials. The potential for pollution from this source will be minimized by the use of trash containers and dock boxes located at frequent intervals around the piers and boat slips, as well as the instructional signs to be placed on the piers and slips by the applicant and the publication of marina rules in order to inform boat operators and guests of the necessity to dispose of trash in the proper containers. It has thus been established that the design and operational characteristics of the marina and conditions to be imposed thereon will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants to be generated and placed in the surface waters at the site. The marina will not occasion violations of applicable water-quality standards. Any pollutants which might be deposited in the surface waters at the site will be quickly transported and dispersed so as to be undetectable at the marina or in the vicinity of the marina because of the critical role played by the hydrographics prevailing at the site. Public Interest Impacts Much of the testimony at hearing regarding impacts upon the various public interest standards, including wildlife and habitats, focused upon the grass beds, and the benthic communities prevailing in deeper water at the site, as well as the fact that the site is used by manatees. Dr. Quinton White was accepted as an expert in biology and biological impacts of marina construction and operation. He testified on behalf of the applicant. His testimony and that of other expert witnesses offered by St. Joe and the Department established that there would be no adverse impact on benthic communities and organisms, including manatees, caused by the construction and operation of the marina. The Petitioners called expert witnesses on the issue of impacts on wildlife. Mike Allen, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, testified that he was not really qualified as an expert in fisheries or benthic communities but, rather, in terms of terrestrial species which are not involved in this proceeding. Lawson Snyder, another Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, was accepted as an expert in fisheries biology on behalf of Petitioner but testified that the marina's impacts upon fish and wildlife would not be detectable. Jim Valade, a Florida Department of Natural Resources staff member, was also accepted as an expert in marine biology, including fish and manatees, but testified that the permit applicant has taken steps to protect manatees in virtually all aspects and that his department's concerns regarding the safety of manatees have been adequately addressed by the design and proposed operation of the marina. Bill Watkins, a St. Johns River Water Management District staff member, was accepted as an expert in biology, but testified that the design of the marina provides the grass beds "a fair degree of protection" and declined to opine that the marina would have any adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Finally, Dr. Carol DeMort, in her deposition, specifically declined to render any opinion regarding adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Thus, the evidence adduced by the Petitioners at hearing did not rebut the evidence introduced by the applicant that the marina will have no detectable impacts upon wildlife or habitats involved in the vicinity of the site St. Joe introduced evidence concerning impacts from shading upon grass beds by the marina structures themselves and from turbidity "washed" onto, the grass beds by motorized boats maneuvering in the marina basin. Expert testimony was adduced that established that shading caused by the widest pier, that is, the main pier with a width of 12 feet, would have no adverse impact on the grass beds due to shading. That testimony was unrebutted and is accepted. Two expert witnesses for St. Joe, a marine engineer and a biologist, as well as a Department witness, established that, even assuming that turbidity was generated by propeller action in the marina basin, the turbidity resulting from prop wash would not be transported 275 feet from the marina basin offshore to the :grass beds at the inshore area. They attributed those opinions to the nature of the sediments involved which are not readily suspended, the flushing at the site, the distance between the basin and the grass beds, and the typical extent of prop wash from boats expected to be used at the marina. The Petitioners presented two witnesses, who testified regarding the impacts of prop wash. Mr. Allen, an expert in upland terrestrial species, testified regarding the potential for deposition of sediments on grass beds but also acknowledged that the hydrographics at the site, the distance between the marina basin and the grass beds and other protective measures would minimize this potential. One lay witness for the Petitioners testified to the effect that if a "handful" of boat owners in the marina violated the "no wake" restrictions and accelerated their boats in violation of those restrictions, they would cause turbidity to be placed upon the grass beds. His testimony was contradicted, however, by a marine engineer, who testified that prop wash is a function of many parameters (e.g., the RPM of the engine, the horsepower of the engine, the draught of the boat, and configuration of the propellers, etc.). He established that it would not be reasonable to expect prop wash extending twice the length of a boat. Regarding impacts upon benthic communities at the site, the applicant introduced expert testimony which established that the benthic communities in that vicinity of the marina, including the grass beds, fin fish, shellfish, and other organisms, will not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the marina in light of the safeguards which would be imposed upon the permit, as delineated herein. This is primarily due to the absence of significant concentrations of pollutants to be expected and the hydrographics prevailing at the site as that relates to the unlikelihood of boat grounding, prop dredging, and prop wash suspending pollutants and turbidity and depositing them on benthic community habitat areas. Only one of Petitioners' witnesses, Dr. DeMort, testified in her deposition concerning potential impacts upon benthic communities. Dr. DeMort made it clear, however, that she had conducted no investigations and studies necessary to enable her to render an expert opinion on the impacts upon the benthic communities prevailing at the site which might be caused by the marina's construction and operation. Her testimony in this regard only related to marina installation and operation in general and was not related to the specific design characteristics and proposed operational parameters of the subject marina. Manatees are an endangered species. There is much concern about their welfare with regard to the proposed project because all parties acknowledge that the site and the shoreward grass bed areas, particularly, are frequented by manatees, particularly for summer foraging. Manatees tend to forage in shallow waters and associated grass beds. Boats pose definite hazards to manatees and cause significant manatee deaths each year due to impact from boats, as much as 15% to 30% of the known population. In response to this hazard, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has recommended that grass beds be protected and that establishment of protective or "no wake" zones in manatee foraging areas be accomplished. In light of such restrictions voluntarily agreed to by St. Joe and its expert testimony in this regard and in light of the manatee education and awareness measures proposed by the applicant, it has been demonstrated that the marina will not have any negative impact on the manatee population in the area. The Petitioners' only expert witness concerning manatees, Jim Valade, indeed, opined that the marina had taken steps to protect manatees "in virtually all aspects". In this connection, the design features in the management and operational plan discussed herein and proposed by the applicant embodies measures to address potential impacts upon manatees which frequent the marina site. These include manatee awareness signs to be posted at the marina; and an additional specific condition has been agreed upon by the Department and the applicant which specifies the size, lettering and other details of the warning signs, and the location of them within the marina, all of which will be included in a plan to be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, a permanent educational display will be located at the Yacht Club informing boaters who frequent the facility of the presence of manatees in the area and the need to minimize the impact of boats upon manatees. During construction, if a manatee is sited within 100 yards of the marina site, construction activities will cease and not resume until manatees have left the area. A handbook will be prepared concerning manatees and the effect on them of boat operation, which will be distributed to employees of the facility and to Yacht Club members and guests. This requirement and the review of it by Yacht Club members and guests will be an integral requirement in the terms of the slip leases. Additionally, no docking facilities, pilings or cleats will be located along the portions of the piers not containing boat slips in order to discourage boaters from attempting to moor at those locations, which will reduce the number of boats frequenting the marina, as that relates to manatee safety. This portion of the St. Johns River functions as a highly productive juvenile fish nursery and sports fishing area. Therefore, an examination of the marina's potential impacts upon marine productivity, fishing and recreation in the area is an important consideration in this proceeding. The discussion of this potential impact involves the same issues discussed in connection with impacts upon water quality and wildlife habitat; namely, the generation of pollutants and the impacts upon the grass beds and benthic communities directly by boat operation itself. Unrefuted testimony adduced by the applicant and the Department has established that impacts upon the fish population and upon marine productivity, fishing and recreational values will not be adverse. No deliterious effect is likely to be occasioned the fisheries and fish habitat and the habitat of other aquatic organisms in terms of juveniles or adults or to the sport fishing values of the area in which the marina will be located. Indeed, the marina structures and the shade and concealment offered by moored boats will provide additional habitat for juvenile fish, as well as provide an additional source of food because of the "fouling communities" of life forms which will be expected to grow on the pilings. These will serve as food for juvenile fish and some species of adult fish which, in turn, will enhance the food supply of predatory fish operating at an upper level in the food web. The boats and structures themselves also will operate as a source of protection for certain fish populations from predators. The Petitioners produced a fisheries biologist as an expert witness, who testified in this regard; but he acknowledged that he did not know whether noticeable impacts on conservation of fish, marine productivity and recreational values will be caused by the installation and operation of the marina. He testified in a general sense that he feared some negative impacts might result but did not feel that any such impacts would be detectable based upon testimony he heard and deferred to, including testimony that the littoral zone would not be impacted by the marina to any significant degree. He ultimately opined that the marina would likely have little impact on sports fishing. The other witness produced by the Petitioners concerning impacts upon fishing and recreational values was unable to render any expert opinion, by her own admission, because she had conducted no studies or otherwise been provided information regarding the design and proposed operation of the marina. Consequently, the testimony adduced by the applicant as to these parameters is accepted; and it has been established that the marina will not adversely impact fisheries, fish conservation, aquatic habitat, sport fishing, recreational values and marine productivity in the area involved at the project site. Regarding potential impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare and property of others, the applicant and the Department adduced expert testimony that no adverse impact regarding these interests will occur. The testimony of Petitioners' experts similarly establishes that the marina would not pose safety hazards or would otherwise give rise to any noticeable impacts upon the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. Regarding potential impacts upon navigation or the flow of water, St. Joe and the Department introduced expert testimony to establish that the marina would not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water, and it is so found. The Petitioners' introduced no evidence regarding this subject. Regarding potential impacts upon significant historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that no adverse impact as regards these resource parameters will occur. Although one of the Petitioners, in her testimony, speculated that the marina could "detract" from the William Bartram scenic highway, she was unable to specify how the marina would impact the highway or to what extent the highway was a significant, historical or archaeological resource. It is found that no such adverse impact on the William Bartram scenic highway will occur. Cumulative Impact Regarding cumulative impacts, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that the marina would not give rise to impacts which, cumulative with the impacts of other marina facilities, would be significant. The evidence establishes that there are six marinas within four miles of this marina site; two upriver, and four downriver. Due to the hydrographic circumstances in the area and the distance of the other marinas from this site, it has been demonstrated that the addition of this marina to the area will not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. Mr. Mike Allen, the expert in upland terrestrial species (not involved in this proceeding), referenced in his testimony the cumulative impacts he feared on sports and commercial fishing. Mr. Allen made it clear, however, that his reference was not to cumulative impacts caused by the marina and existing marinas but, rather, to impacts which could be brought about by many such future facilities located in this particular area. The evidence does not reflect, however, that any other marinas are conceptually contemplated or are the subject of other permit applications for this area for the future. It is thus found that no significant adverse cumulative impacts will be occasioned by the installation and operation of the subject facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joe Paper Company for the dredge and fill permit at issue be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the Department's Intent to Issue, in evidence as St. Joe Exhibit 9, and accepted by the applicant, as well as those conditions found in this Recommended Order to be necessary and supported by the evidence, are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 26 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5053 Applicant's/Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-53. Accepted, but are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter, particularly in those several instances where conditions on the grant of the permit have been recommended to be modified somewhat by the Hearing Officer in light of the totality of the preponderant evidence presented. Rejected, as unnecessary. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact The Department submitted no proposed findings of fact but, rather, adopted those submitted by the applicant/Respondent. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioners, Hoffert, presented no proposed findings of fact but, rather, a letter in the nature of final argument which has been referenced and discussed in the above Preliminary Statement to this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Cornwell, submitted a post-hearing pleading; but it contained no specific, separately-stated proposed findings of fact, which can be separated from their mere recitation and discussion of testimony in evidence and arguments such that coherent, specific rulings could be made. Petitioners, Cornwell's post-hearing pleading did not conform to the instructions given to them by the Hearing Officer at the conclusion of the hearing concerning the appropriate manner for submission of proposed findings of fact, and they were submitted late. They have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order, however, in spite of the fact that they were filed in a tardy fashion. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 T. R. Hainline, Jr., Esq. ROGERS, TOWERS, ET AL. 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 William H. Congdon, Esq. and Joanne Barone, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Room 654 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Davis Winn 3448 State Road 13 Jacksonville, FL 32259 Mary and Irv Cornwell 2652 State Road 13 Switzerland, FL 32259
