Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, granting permit #05-134042-4, with the following amendments: Where the permit reads, "To install an additional 64 boat slips . . .", change to "To install an additional 21 boat slips, for a total of no more than 46 boats . . ." Add to the specific conditions attached to the permit, paragraph 7., to read: "The breakwater to be installed at the entrance of the northern basin will be angled outward along a line that, if extended, would intersect with the southeastern corner of the property on the north shore of the basin." DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 10th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Walker, Jr. 6175 North Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida 32940 Harry and Vivian Stahler Donald and Mark Stahler 6190 North U.S. #1 Melbourne, Florida 32940 Vivian Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed dentists such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Dentistry has found probable cause exists to suspect that the licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. Respondent Pasquale Almerico, Jr., a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida since 1984. Respondent's address of record is 704 North Alexander Street, Plant City, Florida. The Events On February 16, 2010, patient P.D., a 60-year-old female, presented to Respondent's dental office to discuss the replacement of a partial, removable denture that was causing discomfort. The partial denture, which another dentist installed some 15 years earlier to fill the gaps created by lost teeth in the lower-left portion of P.D.'s mouth——specifically, teeth numbers 18 and 19——was secured by a metal “C-clasp” attached to tooth number 20. Noticing immediately that the partial denture was ill fitting, Respondent recommended its replacement with a three- unit cantilever bridge at teeth numbers 19, 20, and 21. As explained during the final hearing, a cantilever is a type of fixed bridge that attaches to adjacent teeth on one end only. Thus, in this instance, abutment crowns on teeth numbers 20 and 21 would connect to a pontic (an artificial tooth) extending into the gap formerly occupied by tooth number 19. P.D. consented to the suggested treatment during the February 16 office visit, at which point Respondent removed the existing crown on tooth number 20, took a radiograph of the relevant area, and performed a thorough clinical examination of teeth numbers 20 and 21. Although Respondent observed some abrasion2/ on the distal surface of tooth number 20 where the C- clasp of the partial denture had been attached, the teeth otherwise appeared healthy——i.e., neither Respondent's direct visualization of the teeth nor his review of the radiograph suggested the presence of decay. At the conclusion of the February 16 visit, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 20 and 21 (a process that involves the use of a drill to remove enough enamel from the teeth so that the bridge will fit properly), took a final impression, and provided P.D. with a temporary bridge. P.D. returned to Respondent's office on March 3, 2010, at which time Respondent removed the temporary bridge and performed a “try-in” with the metal framework of the new bridge. During this process, Respondent directly visualized tooth number 20 and, as was the case during the previous visits, observed no signs of decay.3/ However, Respondent noticed that the metal framework would not seat correctly, which prompted him to take a new impression. Thereafter, on March 10, 2010, Respondent removed P.D.'s temporary bridge and conducted a try-in with the new metal framework——affording him a third opportunity to visualize tooth number 20. Once again, Respondent observed no indications of decay or any other issues. Of the opinion that the second impression had yielded a satisfactory framework, Respondent scheduled P.D. to return at a later date for the seating of her new bridge. Upon P.D.'s return on March 24, 2010, Respondent removed the temporary bridge and directly visualized tooth number 20 for a fourth time; no decay was observed. Respondent then proceeded to seat the cantilever bridge, which fit well and caused the patient no discomfort. At that point, it was anticipated that P.D. would follow up with Respondent in six months for routine cleaning and maintenance. As it happens, though, P.D. returned to Respondent's office a mere five days later, on March 29, 2010. During the visit, P.D. reported that her new bridge was “hurting” and that she was feeling “pressure constantly.” Notably, however, P.D. denied that the pain was of such intensity that it kept her awake at nighttime, which militated against a conclusion that the patient was suffering from an abscess.4/ In response to P.D.'s complaints, Respondent adjusted and flossed the bridge. That an adjustment was made so soon after the bridge's seating, although less than optimal, was by no means unusual; indeed, Petitioner's expert witness concedes that neither the timing of the March 29 visit nor P.D.'s report of pressure necessitated a clinical examination or the taking of an x-ray on that date.5/ Nine days later, on April 7, 2014, P.D. appeared at Respondent's office once again, this time with the complaint that she was biting her cheek. During the clinical examination that ensued, Respondent surmised that the cheek biting, if any, had been caused by a different, aging bridge located in the upper left of P.D.'s mouth (at teeth numbers 11 through 14).6/ Respondent did, however, notice that the new bridge was hitting high, which prompted him to make a minimal adjustment using a rubber wheel. Although Petitioner contends that Respondent should have taken an x-ray during the April 7 visit to rule out an abscess, the evidence demonstrates that P.D. exhibited none of the clinical symptoms sometimes attendant to such a condition. Save for her report of “cheek biting,” P.D. presented with no complaint of severe——or, for that matter, any——pain,7/ nor did she exhibit any discomfort during the adjustment. Moreover, P.D. did not react adversely when Respondent used the end of his examination mirror to perform percussion on the bridge. Finally, Respondent detected no inflammation below the gum line. Subsequently, on April 13, 2010, P.D. returned to Respondent's office and reported that the new bridge was “catching her lip.” P.D. complained of no other pain relating to the new bridge, and Respondent's clinical examination yielded no indications (e.g., thermal sensitivity or sensitivity to percussion) that the patient was suffering from an abscess.8/ Owing to the dearth of symptoms suggestive of endodontic involvement, Respondent determined that an x-ray was unnecessary. However, Respondent made a minimal adjustment to the new bridge and sent P.D. on her way, with the expectation that the patient would return in six months for a follow-up visit. Although P.D. would return a mere six days later, on April 19, 2010, her complaints at that time related only to the aging bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 (seated years earlier by another dentist), which Respondent discovered was “hitting hard.” Significantly, P.D. raised no issues concerning her new bridge at teeth numbers 19 through 21, and Respondent's examination revealed, yet again, no signs of endodontic involvement.9/ As such, Respondent did nothing more than make a slight adjustment to the bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14.10/ Soon thereafter, P.D. scheduled another appointment and returned to Respondent's office on April 27. On this occasion, as with the previous visit, P.D. voiced no complaints concerning her new bridge, and Respondent observed no signs of inflammation, cheek biting, or any problems. This time, however, P.D. accused Respondent of “breaking” the bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 and suggested that he provide a replacement free of charge. Respondent was understandably dismayed by P.D.'s demand, for he had never caused any damage to the 11 through 14 bridge; moreover, the bridge in question, although in poor condition, was by no means “broken.” At that point, Respondent terminated his relationship with P.D. Expert Testimony As noted previously, Petitioner advances two unrelated theories in support of its charge that Respondent violated the minimum standard of care. First, Petitioner contends that, prior to the seating of the new bridge on March 24, 2010, Respondent failed to treat decay supposedly present on the distal surface (i.e., the part of the tooth that faces the back of the mouth) of tooth number 20. In light of Respondent's concession that the standard of care requires the removal of existing decay prior to the seating of a bridge, Petitioner's first theory boils down to a factual dispute over whether decay was present on tooth number 20 on March 24, 2010. In an attempt to establish the presence of decay, Petitioner adduced testimony from Dr. Solomon Brotman, an eminently qualified dentist with more than 30 years of practical experience. Although Dr. Brotman concedes that he never clinically examined P.D., he nevertheless maintains that the presence of “substantial” decay on tooth number 20 is demonstrated by x-rays in Respondent's possession when the bridge was seated.11/ Dr. Brotman further opines that the x-rays of tooth number 20 are not reasonably susceptible to any other interpretation (e.g., abrasion or erosion), and that Respondent may have missed the decay because it is “sometimes” tooth colored. Finally, Dr. Brotman asseverates that, in cases involving interproximal decay, it is appropriate to make a diagnosis based solely on an x-ray. Respondent counters with testimony from Dr. Robert Fish, an expert with an equally impressive background, who credibly asserts that the x-rays in question are not suggestive of decay but, rather, abrasion12/ that likely resulted from the ill-fitting “C-clasp” of the removable partial denture——an opinion that jibes with Respondent's persuasive testimony that he observed abrasion on the distal surface of tooth number 20. Dr. Fish further contends that, had decay been present, it is highly unlikely that Respondent would have missed it given the number of times he directly visualized tooth number 20 prior to the seating.13/ The short of it is that decay quite possibly existed on the distal surface of tooth number 20 at the time Respondent seated the bridge. However, Respondent's persuasive account of his clinical observations of the tooth, buttressed by the credible testimony of Dr. Fish, leaves the undersigned with substantial doubt on this point. As such, Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof. The undersigned now turns to Petitioner's alternative theory, namely, that “continuing, localized dental pain” required Respondent to rule out the possibility of an abscess at the root of tooth number 20. In relevant part, the Amended Complaint alleges: Continuing, localized dental pain is a symptom of endodontic involvement. Minimum standards of diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry require that when a patient complains of continued dental pain, a dentist take radiographic images of the symptomatic area to determine whether there is endodontic involvement. . . . Patient appointed with Respondent for relief of pain five times [after the bridge was seated] . . . . Respondent Dr. Almerico did not take radiographs of that area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement during those visits. By failing to take radiographic images to determine possible endodontic involvement at bridge #19-21, Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of dental diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (emphasis added). Fairly read, the Amended Complaint alleges the standard of care as follows: when a patient reports continuing, localized dental pain, a practitioner must take an x-ray of the symptomatic area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement. As Respondent correctly argues, however, the testimony of Petitioner's expert departs substantially from the theory pleaded in the charging document. First, contrary to paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a failure to take x- rays “or otherwise rule out” an abscess, Dr. Brotman's formulation of the standard of care absolutely requires the taking of an x-ray to eliminate the possibility of endodontic involvement. To muddy the waters further, Dr. Brotman's articulation of the prevailing standard at times focused not on P.D.'s supposed reports of continued pain but, rather, the fact that Respondent made more than one adjustment to the new bridge subsequent to its seating: A Sure. I think we fell below the minimum standards on 4/7, 4/13 and 4/19 of 2010, because each of those visits, because the patient came back with the bite having shifted, which for that reason Dr. Almerico continued to adjust the bite on each visit. * * * BY MR. PRICE: Q Doctor, you just gave an opinion that is the standard of care that a patient with more than one adjustment, they automatically get an X-ray. You just gave that as a standard-of-care opinion, didn't you? A Yes, sir. (emphasis added).14/ In light of the significant degree to which Dr. Brotman's testimony deviates from the theory charged in the Amended Complaint, it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to convincingly articulate the minimum standard of performance against which the undersigned, as fact-finder, can independently evaluate Respondent's conduct. Even assuming that Petitioner had established the standard of care (as pleaded), there is a dearth of credible evidence that P.D. presented with continuing, localized pain relating to the new bridge. As detailed previously, P.D.'s report on April 7 that she was “biting her cheek” involved the older bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14; on her next visit, she complained only that her new bridge was “catching her lip”; on April 19, P.D. merely informed Respondent that the older bridge was “hitting hard”; and, on her final visit, P.D. complained of nothing at all (save for her dubious request for a free replacement of the older bridge).15/ Such hardly constitutes a pattern of ongoing, localized pain. In any event, the persuasive evidence demonstrates that Respondent “otherwise ruled out” endodontic involvement through his clinical observations. Indeed, as Dr. Fish persuasively explained during his testimony, P.D. presented with none of the symptoms16/ sometimes associated with the presence of an abscess——e.g., sensitivity to temperature, exquisite pain, sensitivity to percussion, a fistula, or inflammation——during the office visits of April 7, 13, 19, and 27, 2010, thereby obviating the need for an x-ray. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of violating section 466.028(1)(x).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Dentistry dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The respondent Mariner Properties, Inc., also referred to herein as the "applicant", is the owner of South Seas Plantation, a vacation resort located on Captiva Island. This resort development comprises some 300 acres, with two miles of gulf-front beaches and four miles of bayfront. Located on the northern end of the Island is an existing large yacht basin or marina with facilities for docking boats up to 100 feet in length. While this marina does have slips for about eight small boats (under 24 feet in length), the facility is not well suited for the docking of small boats because of the height of the docks. Fueling services are available at this marina and an active search and rescue service operates out of the marina, with no charge to boaters in distress. A smaller boat basin exists on the southern portion of the Island, which basin was enlarged by the applicant pursuant to a permit issued by DER in 1975. The applicant has also been granted a permit to construct boat docking facilities within the small boat basin. Finger slips for about 43 small boats - - up to 24 feet in length, are planned, but construction has not yet begun. The small boat basin will not have fueling facilities for the boats. If the requested permit is granted, the rescue service which operates out of the larger yacht basin plans to dock one of its service boats in the small basin. The small basin will also serve as a refuge area for small boaters during a storm or inclement weather. In May of 1977, Mariner Properties, Inc., submitted its application to the DER to modify an existing permit by dredging an access channel to connect its small boat basin to the waters of Pine Island Sound. In its present modified form, the applicant requests a permit to maintenance dredge a channel 250 fee long, fifteen feet wide, to a depth of -3.0 feet, mean low water. Approximately 195 cubic yards of material will be excavated to construct this channel and the spoil will be unloaded on an upland area. The project will involve the destruction of almost 4,000 square feet of seagresses. Mr. Kevin Erwin, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, made site inspections and performed a biological assessment of the area as it relates to the proposed project. It was his conclusion and recommendation that the application be denied based on the expected significantly adverse immediate and long-term impacts upon water quality and marine resources. Mr. Erwin was concerned with the elimination of almost 4,000 square feet of productive vegetated estuarina bottoms. Seagrasses provide an essential habitat to many marine species, act as an important nursery and feeding ground for young fish and shrimp, stabilize marine bottoms and contribute nutrients to the foodweb. The witness further felt that there was a potential for water quality violations within the channel. Mr. Erwin did observe cuts or propeller scars in the grass beds adjacent to the proposed channel. Such cuts or scars take a long period, up to fifteen years, to heal. He felt that boat traffic to and from the small boat basin should be restricted by a marked easement, as opposed to a dredge channel. Mr. Erwin's District Manager, Phillip R. Edwards, reviewed the subject application and observed the area in question. It was his oral recommendation to Tallahassee that the permit be granted. Mr. Edwards observed the seagrass cuts in the area adjacent to the proposed dredging project and concluded that more damage would result without a channel. While Mr. Edwards agreed that a potential for water quality standards existed, he felt that a channel would minimize the overall damage caused by boats continuing to travel over the adjacent seagrass areas. Mr. Forrest Fields, an environmental specialist with DER, reviewed the present application and Mr. Erwin's biological assessment of the area. He did not concur with Erwin's conclusion regarding violations of water quality standards, and felt that the applicant had given reasonable assurances to the contrary. Mr. Fields was of the opinion that a minimal channel would be less damaging to grass beds than the uncontrolled ingress and egress of boats utilizing the small boat basin. The public interest concerns of the basin being opened to the boating public and the basin being used by a rescue service without charge to boaters in distress were also expressed in the notice of intent to issue the permit prepared by Mr. Fields. Mr. Ross McWilliams, an environmental specialist with DER who reviews the work and recommendations of Mr. Fields, also recommended that the permit application be granted. Mr. McWilliams balanced the definable public loss which would ensue from the elimination of the 4,000 square feet of grass beds against the public benefit to be gained for the availability of the project to the boating public and the operation of a marine rescue service form the small boat basin. It was his conclusion that the proposed project would not be contrary to the public interest. A considerable portion of the testimony of this proceeding was devoted to the issue of whether a previous channel existed on the proposed site. Taken as a whole, the evidence establishes that the area which the applicant seeks to deepen is presently deeper than the surrounding grass flats. Aerial photographs received into evidence indicate by a straight while line some human activity and that the area in question has been used as a channel. All expert witnesses agreed that at least the shorewared 20 to 25 feet of the area appeared to have been disturbed. It could not be conclusively determined whether and when a channel had been dredged and, if so, the extent of the same. It is clear, however, that the specific area had been used as an access channel for the small boat basin in question. The area over which the applicant seeks to dredge is a shallow grass flat inhabited by turtle grass (Thallasia) and Cuban Shoal weed (Halodule), and is a very productive area in the marine ecosystem. The waters are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, A Class II body of water. No rules, regulations or management plan have been promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources for the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The proposed channel is to be of a "box-cut" design with a flat bottom and vertical walls. Such a design is likely to create the need for frequent maintenance due to the possibility that the soft sides will slough inward. If further maintenance dredging becomes necessary, a permit for the same from the Department of Environmental Regulation would be required. If granted authority, the applicant would accomplish the dredging by utilizing either the "mud cat" type of dredge or a clam shell dragline mounted on a barge. Turbidity curtains will used to minimize the effects of loosening the bay bottoms and proliferation of silt by the dredging operation. All material excavated from the proposed channel will be deposited on an upland site. The petitioners in this cause either own or manage waterfront property within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, and utilize the waters thereof. They have adequately demonstrated their substantial interest in the proposed project.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to Mariner Properties, Inc. a permit for the channel dredging project to the conditions set forth in Section III (B) of the Department's Proposed Order of Issuance executed on November 0, 1978, and subject to any forms of consent which may be required under Florida Statutes, Section 253.77. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman Casey J. Gluckman 5305 Isabelle Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth G. Oertel Truett and Oertel, P.A. 646 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ray Allen Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Secretary Jake Varn Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SANIBEL-CAPTIVA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, ROBERT RAUSCHENBERG and FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-2422 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and MARINER PROPERTIES INCORPORATED, Respondent. / By the Department:
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1988 the City made application to the Department for issuance of a dredge and fill permit to replace an existing wooden bridge known as the Lynnhaven Terrace Bridge which crosses Deep Bottom Creek in Duval County, Florida. At that time the existing bridge was a two lane timber bridge measuring approximately 20 feet wide, having two spans of 19 feet and 14 feet respectively with associated guardrails. The replacement bridge was to be 44 feet wide and 37 feet long. Subsequently, a revision was made to the permit application which called for reduction in the width of the bridge to 39 feet. A copy of the original application may be found as City's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence and the revision was received as City's Exhibit 3. The bridge in its revised format would include two paved lane and two sidewalks on the outside of those lanes. This bridge too would have guardrails. The bridge replacement project would involve the dredging of approximately 122 cubic yards of material from the creek bottom and the installation of 12 concrete pilings along the riverbank. Approximately 4.75 cubic yards of fill will be placed below the mean high waterline and 690 cubic yards above that line. Stabilization of the north and south banks of the side of the bridge will be accomplished with 160 linear feet of sheet pile wall. The total acreage to be filled is approximately 1.1 acres with 0.002 acres being in wetlands or open waters within the Deep Bottom Creek. By this arrangement, part of the activities are within waters of the state and the upward extent of those waters and confer jurisdiction on the Department to require a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification. The jurisdiction of the Department extends to the mean high waterline of the creek in accordance with Section 403.913(2), Florida Statutes, and this takes into account the opportunity to examine the implications of dredging and filling associated with the project. The waters at issue are Class III waters. Black Bottom Creek is part of a drainage basin leading to the St. Johns River, a major water body. The reason for this project concerns the present bridge's deteriorating condition as shown in the City's Composite Exhibit 1, a series of photos. The bridge is in such disrepair that it has been downgraded in its load rating to three (3) tons, which is inadequate to support heavy vehicles, to include emergency vehicles such as firetrucks. With the advent of the concrete bridge, this problem would be rectified. An attempt to effect repairs on the existing bridge is not a reasonable choice for the City. The Department, in response to the application, conducted an assessment of that application or appraisal to include biological and water quality concerns. A copy of the report rendered in response to the application may be found as the Department's Exhibit 1. That report favors the grant of a permit in water quality certification and at the date of hearing that opinion was still held by the Department. The report points out that the project would straighten out a problem with a curve in the creek course by the choice of location for the new bridge. This arrangement will assist in the flow pattern and give a positive influence in preventing shoaling underneath the existing bridge. It will also positively affect the problem of the erosion in the upland area of the existing bridge which causes deposition of material into the creek bottom. The report describes the fact that steps to contain turbidity during the construction phase can be achieved. Having been satisfied concerning this application, an Intent to Issue a Permit and water quality certification was stated on April 15, 1988. A copy of the Intent to Issue may be found as Department's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. The permit was to be issued on condition concerning the question of authority to operate in waters of the state as contemplated by Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. That matter is not one for consideration in the present dispute. It also refers to preservation of historical and archeological artifacts. There has been no demonstration that such artifacts exist in the area of this project. The turbidity control mechanisms were mentioned as a special condition and as suggested before, those matters can be attended by this applicant and are expected to be. There is reference to doing the work at periods of average or low water, and there was no indication that this could not be accomplished by the applicant. On April 19, 1988 the actual permit was rendered and had attached letters of April 18, 1988 advising the City that it could contest the permit terms and the fact that others might promote objections to the permit and water quality certification. In fact, a number of land owners in the general vicinity of the project have contested this permit application leading to the present hearing. The petition and challenge to the intention to grant a permit was timely made. The Petitioners are Mr. and Mrs. John Jordan, Mr. and Mrs. Ian Ablett, Mr. Keith Kelly, Ms. Dorothy Brown, Mr. Hal Moyle, Ms. Holly Baker, Ms. Beatrice Diomont, J. H. Cater, Mr. and Mrs. W. Reed, Mr. and Mrs. H. Carrell, Mr. Harvey Jay, Ms. K. C. Walsh and Donald Braddock. Only Mr. and Mrs. Ablett, Mr. Kelly, and the Carrell's attended the hearing and established their standing to challenge the intended agency action. Moreover, the nature of their challenge as set forth in their petition has been restricted by a ruling which struck reference to the alleged influence which this project has on property values associated with a lack of sensitivity for aesthetics in exchanging the wooden bridge for a concrete pile bridge. Otherwise, the Petitioners through the presentation at hearing spoke in terms of shoaling at the site as a matter of their concern. This problem is not one which is attributable to the City and its activities, it is related to commercial activities upstream from the project site. As described, if anything, the project will alleviate those problems to some extent. Additional reasons which the Petitioners advanced in opposition concern the belief that they did not need a new bridge, that the bridge was too wide and that they did not need sidewalks and guardrails. Notwithstanding their perceptions, the overall public needs would favor the replacement of the bridge to include wider lanes and sidewalks for safe pedestrian passage. Again, at present, there are no sidewalks with the existing bridge. The expression of opposition by the Petitioners beyond the reference to the shoaling problem and the effects on water levels is not a matter of environmental concern contemplated by the permit application review process under consideration here. On May 13, 1988, the Department of the Army issued a permit for this project, a copy of which may be found as City's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. In addition, the Coast Guard has no opposition to this project and has said as much in its correspondence of May 2, 1988, a copy of which may be found as City's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. The immediate and long term impacts of this project are not violative of applicable state water quality standards, in that reasonable assurances have been given that those standards will not be exceeded. This project is not contrary to the public interest. It is not adverse to public health, safety or welfare or property of others. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, to include endangered or threatened species or other habitats. The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water which will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The project is permanent in nature but over time it will not have adverse impacts on the environment. Considering the current conditions and diminished value of environmental functions being performed by the area, they are not particularly significant at present and the project will not change that posture, in fact it may improve the circumstance. Specifically, at present no endangered or threatened species are found within the creek. There had been some wildlife activity, but continuing problems with silting or shoaling have occurred since the homeowners in the area dredged the creek bottom, and wildlife has decreased as a result. This relates to the upstream activities which continue to promote problems in the creek bottom. On the subject of navigation, limited navigation is available by small boats or canoes at present, and the elevations of the replacement bridge are such as to not interfere with that activity.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 5, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for a variance to replace an existing four foot fence extending to the seawall on his property at 643 Harbor Island, Lot 12 Island Estates, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned RS-6. Petitioner had already replaced his previous fencing prior to the filing of this application with wooden fencing which extends on the north and south side of his property through the setback to the seawall. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered Petitioner's application at its meeting on May 12, 1988, and based upon the Petitioner's explanation that the variance was sought simply to replace an existing fence that had termite damage, the Board approved his application on a 3 to 2 vote. The variance approval was conditioned upon the Petitioner obtaining a building permit within one month of the approval. Petitioner failed to obtain the required building permit, and no excuse was offered for this failure. Therefore, he had to reapply for the variance. On or about July 21, 1988, Petitioner filed his variance reapplication. The Development Code Adjustment Board considered this reapplication on August 25, 1988, at which time Petitioner again stated that he was simply replacing an existing fence. Due to a tie vote, consideration of the reapplication was continued to the Board's meeting of September 8, 1988. At the meeting on September 8, he explained for the first time that while the fencing on the south side of his property was simply the replacement of a previous fence which had extended to the seawall, the fencing on the north side was not. The previous fence on the north side of his property had stopped prior to the fifteen foot setback. With this clarification, the Board approved his variance reapplication for the south side of his property, but denied the variance for the north side. Petitioner has timely appealed the denial of his variance reapplication as it relates to the north side of his property. Petitioner testified at hearing that prior to the construction of his current wooden fence, he had a wood fence all the way to the seawall on the south side of his property. Since he had to replace that fencing due to termite damage, he took the opportunity to also replace and extend the wooden fencing on the northern side of his property through the setback. This action was not based on any hardship, but simply because he and his family felt it would look better if he had the same fencing on both sides of his property. It is clear and undisputed that Petitioner constructed a new fence on the north side of his property through the setback without obtaining a variance or permit. He did this simply for aesthetic reasons, and not due to any hardship. He failed to disclose this in his applications, or when the Board met on May 12 and August 25, 1988 to consider this matter.
Findings Of Fact The proposed marina project involves the repair and renovation of a marina which has been in existence since the 1920s. The marina is located in Biscayne Bay within the City of Miami Beach, west of Purdy Avenue where it intersects with 13th Street. Currently, the marina is in a state of disrepair. In 1974, Respondent acquired ownership of the marina which was at that time an operating facility. Thereafter, Respondent began formulating plans to renovate and repair the facility. Respondent obtained estimates from construction firms to make repairs to the facility by replacing or reinforcing deteriorated members, piles, decking and other parts. Respondent plans to remove the existing wooden piers and piles consisting of 35,000 square feet of deck surface area and construct in their stead a facility consisting of only 24,560 square feet of deck surface area. The marina as renovated would not exceed its existing boundaries. In fact, the south pier of the marina will be relocated 40 feet northward of its existing location, which would place it 90 feet from the south property line. The proposed project entails construction of three main piers. The south pier is an L-shaped configuration which would extend westward 416 feet by 10 feet and then northward 304 feet by 10 feet. The north pier, also L-shaped, would extend westward 416 feet by 10 feet and then southward 202 feet by 10 feet. The center pier will have a T-shaped configuration. Its dimensions will extend westward 358 feet by 10 feet. The marina will also have a pier extending both northward and southward, 50 feet by 10 feet each from the center line of the pier. Additionally, the project will contain mooring piles along a canal which extends eastward from the northern perimeter of the marina. When completed, the marina will have accommodations for 161 vessels. The present facility, while it was a fully operating marina, accommodated 135 boats, together with over-the-water facilities constructed on a main center pier. Such facilities included a machine shop and major marina repair facilities, neither of which uses is proposed for the new facility. Construction activity for the proposed project involves no dredging or filling. In addition to reducing deck surface area to 24,560 square fete from the 35,000 square feet contained in the old facility, the proposed project also will contain 409 pilings as opposed to 1,037 in the existing facility. Existing wooden pilings will be removed and will be replaced with concrete pilings. Turbidity curtains will be used during the construction phase to reduce any adverse affect on water quality, which, in any event should be minimal. The concrete pilings will be installed by setting them in a steel template and driving them into the earth at the bay bottom with a hammer. In effect, this construction technique punches a hole straight down into the earth and results in minimal displacement of sediments at the bottom. Respondent also proposes to make certain cosmetic repairs to the sea wall at the present marina where there is some deterioration on the upper edges above the mean high water line resulting from corrosion. Such repairs will be made by welding of steel plate and putting a concrete cap over the top of the existing wall. The waters of Biscayne Bay are classified as Class III waters. There are no Class II waters in the vicinity of the proposed project. The testimony and evidence established that the area in and surrounding the marina facility is not productive in terms of benthic or faunal communities. There is virtually no marine vegetation in the area. The marina itself is almost devoid of any seagrasses, with the exception of several springs of Halophila and Caulerpa. The closest existing grass beds are located approximately 700 to 1,000 feet west of the marina's western perimeter. These grass beds, which include turtle grass and manatee grass, have apparently flourished during the period the existing marina was in full operation. Fouling organisms were found attached to pilings and the seawall areas of the marina. The waters inside the marina, and those in the surrounding area are not suitable as a habitat for breeding, nursery or feeding grounds for fish or other marine life. Studies conducted by Respondent's hydrographic expert indicate that tidal flow in the area of the marina will be enhanced by the renovation of the facility, largely due to reduction in the number of pilings, thereby reducing resistance to tidal flow. The evidence also disclosed that construction of the proposed facility will pose no navigational hazard or serious impediment to navigation in the immediate vicinity. The canal along the northern perimeter of the proposed project varies from 105 feet in width. Apparently only noncommercial boats will be docked in the marina and the canal. A marina has existed at the location of the proposed project for over 50 years, and there is no evidence that has ever created navigational problems within the canal or within the immediate area of Biscayne Bay. Petitioners suggest that the marina will "create a navigational hazard, or serious impediment to navigation..." within the meaning of DER's regulations, specifically Chapter 17-4.29(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, under the theory that the boats to be accommodated in the facility will result in a general increase in boating traffic in north Biscayne Bay, and would, in addition, adversely affect the public's "navigation" of automobiles across numerous draw bridges whose spans will often be raised to accommodate boat traffic. It does not appear that chapters 253, 258.165 or 403, Florida Statutes, afford DER the authority to consider such factors in determining whether to issue a water quality permit. Even assuming that as a matter of law DER may consider such factors, the evidence presented by Petitioners on this point was vague and speculative. In its Proposed Order of Issuance, DER imposed seven permit conditions which, when combined with the design of the project and the facts set forth above, constitute "reasonable assurance" that the proposed project will not adversely affect water quality. These conditions include the following: Turbidity shall be monitored once daily during periods of water related construction activities at mid-depth 100 ft. upcurrent and 100 ft. down-current of the work area by a person(s) (project monitor) designed by the permittee. Adequate controls are taken during construction so turbidity levels beyond 100 ft. of the construction area in Biscayne Bay do not exceed 50 J.T.U. A pumpout station shall be installed and maintained for the removal of sewage and wastes from the vessels using this facility. No liveaboard vessels shall be docked at this facility unless said vessel has either a Coast Guard approved Marine Sanitation Device or a direct sewage pumpout connection is provided at the liveaboard slip. There shall be no positive drainage of stormwater runoff from the marina parking lot to Biscayne Bay. Fuel storage tanks shall be constructed of non-corrosive materials and located on the upland portion of the site. The fuel storage tanks shall be pressure tested at least once yearly to ensure that they are not leaking. Test reports shall be submitted to DER and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management. Floating oil booms and sorbent materials or equivalent equipment shall be available on site at all times in order to contain and clean up any oil or fuel spills. All marina employees shall be trained in the deployment and usage of the above spill cleanup equipment. The equipment above shall be subject to inspection by all regulatory agencies. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was stipulated among the parties that Petitioner, Izaak Walton League of America, Mangrove chapter, has standing to maintain this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. With respect to Save Our Bay, the evidence disclosed that it is an unincorporated association which was formed for the purpose of preserving the waters of Biscayne Bay for safe navigational use, swimming and fishing, and to enhance the beauty of sunset Island and the venetian Isles, while at the same time protecting the area from the effects of pollution. Members of Save Our Bay own property in the vicinity of the proposed project, and use the waters in that area for swimming, boating and fishing. Their use of the natural resources of Biscayne Bay could be affected by construction of the proposed project. Walton, Save Our Bay and Respondent Turchin have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Description of Proposed Fill Project DER proposes to deny three alternative proposals to fill all or part of Petitioners' real property located in Key West, Florida. The property is rectangular, approximately three acres in size, with 300 feet bordering Roosevelt Boulevard (High-Way A1A) to the south and approximately 300 feet bordering Key West International Airport to the north. The easterly property line is 489.4 feet and the westerly line is 434.63 feet. The Straits of Florida (Atlantic Ocean) are immediately on the other side of Roosevelt Boulevard to the south. The property has a strip of approximately 90 feet of upland and transitional wetland adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard, with the rest of the property being covered by a salt pond of approximately 40 acres in size (Jnt. Ex. 1). Petitioners initially submitted a permit application in July, 1983, to fill the entire property for construction of multifamily housing units. On May 4, 1984, after discussion with a DER permitting official, Petitioners submitted a second application containing two alternative, less extensive development proposals. The first alternative involves the placement of fill over a 300' x 230' area (approximately 9722 cubic yards) extending 230 feet from the property along Roosevelt Boulevard out into the water. This alternative would entail construction of 24 family housing units, consisting of six basic structures, each four-stories high. The second alternative involves subdividing the property into six separate lots connected by a central fill road with cul-de- sac. Each lot, approximately .4 acres in size, would contain a single family house on pilings and an associated fill pad for parking. The fill pads would be connected to a approximately 300' x 30' entrance road constructed on fill material. Presumably, this second alternative would contain the same amount of total fill as required in the first. As it presently exists, the salt pond (a part of which applicant would fill) serves several significant and beneficial environmental functions. In regard to water quality, the pond stores, filters, and purifies large quantities of storm water which drain from the airport and South Roosevelt Boulevard. The filling of any portion of this pond would diminish this capacity. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Because of their relatively isolated nature, the organic detrital material that is produced from the leaf litter of fringing mangroves is broken down into a very fine and readily usable form by bacteria. As a result, when there is an occasional exchange between the salt pond and tidal waters, the exported organics are in a very desirable form for higher trophic levels in the food web such as small fish, crustaceans, filter feeders, and various larval forms of marine life. (Jnt. Ex. 1) The salt pond proper provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, most notable of which are avifauna. The pond has apparently become established as a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem providing permanent and temporary food, shelter and refuge for many faunal species which play significant and necessary ecological roles both in the salt ponds and other tidal and brackish water systems. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the placement of fill and the displacement of present salt pond habitat, water quality and the biological resources in the immediate and surrounding areas would be expected to undergo degradation. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the encroachment of development in this area, which presently lacks residential development, biological integrity standards would be expected to fall below acceptable levels. The proposed fill areas would reduce wind- driven circulation in the pond so as to stress levels of oxygen, salinity, temperature and turbidity. Runoff from the proposed fill would introduce nutrients and elevate turbidity during storm events. Finally, elevated turbidity levels could be expected during the actual filling process and the various species of fish and wildlife now located over the project site would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and permanently displaced in the long term through the loss of habitat. (Jnt. Ex. 1) There is a 40' zoning setback and another 50' easement owned by the City of Key West, which together form a 90' strip on the property adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard. This 90-foot strip is largely upland and some transitional wetland. There is no zoning impediment to any of the development alternatives proposed by Petitioners. The property is currently zoned R2H (multifamily residential) by the City of Key West. II. DER's Action on the Application After DER received and reviewed Petitioners initial application on July 22, 1983, a completeness summary was sent on August 17, 1983, requesting additional information. DER received the additional information on March 23, 1984, after which it notified Petitioners that additional information was needed. Petitioners met with DER officials on April 20, 1984, and submitted additional information on May 4, 1984, including the two alternative proposals. DER issued the "Intent to Deny" all three of the proposed projects on July 19, 1984 (Jnt. Ex. 1). On May 16, 1984, a DER Environmental Specialist visited the site of the proposed projects and conducted a biological and water quality assessment. This assessment was later submitted, in report form, as the Permit Application Appraisal, dated June 7, 1984. This appraisal, uncontested by Petitioners, indicates that each of the three fill proposals would take place in waters of the state and result in water quality violations under Rules 17-3.051(1), 17- 3.061(2)(c), (j) and (r); 17-3.121(7), (13) and (28); Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code; and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Water quality problems associated with the project were identified as diminished storm water treatment, reduced beneficial deterital material, stress on oxygen levels, salinity, temperature, and turbidity, and an introduction of nutrients. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Although a DER dredge and fill permitting official testified that any filling of the salt pond would be detrimental to the birds and animals which feed there on a daily basis, and that, in his view, a "substantial amount" of filling would not be allowed by DER, there are development projects (other than the three presented by Petitioners) which, in his view, may qualify for a permit under DER rules. DER has, in the past, issued permits authorizing the construction of above-ground residences over wetland properties. Under DER's permitting standards, one or more single-family residences could be built on the property if the structures were built on stilts, did not violate water quality standards, had acceptable drainage, and did not result in adverse storm water discharges. In evaluating such an application, any mitigation an applicant could provide, such as enhancing flushing in the salt ponds by the installation of a culvert to open water, would be balanced against any adverse impacts expected from the filling activity. The three alternative filling proposals submitted by Petitioners (including drawings and designs) do not, however as yet, fall within or satisfy these general perimeters of permitting acceptability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to fill (containing three alternative proposals) be denied for failure to prove compliance with applicable permitting standards contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17- 4, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985.
