The Issue The issue in this case is whether Conklin Point Development Corp. is entitled to an environmental resources permit for the renovation and reconfiguration of an existing 190-slip docking facility near Wiggins Pass.
Findings Of Fact Previously Permitted Development Respondent Conklin Point Development Corp. (Applicant) owns and operates a docking facility in north Collier County. The docking facility runs along the perimeter of a bulkheaded spoil island located in a small lagoon adjoining the lower reaches of the Cocohatchee River. The 15-acre island is roughly square-shaped with 800-foot sides. A long deadend canal extends into the north side of the island. The deadend canal is about 100 feet wide, 300 feet long on the west side, and 200 feet long on the east side. On the east of the island, two canals connected by a large, earthen- covered culvert separate the island from the mainland. The canals are 90 feet wide. The north canal is 230 feet long, and the south canal is 340 feet long. Applicant also holds a submerged land lease from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for about four acres of submerged land abutting the spoil island. The submerged land leased to Applicant is 90 feet wide at the south and west sides of the island and 45 feet wide along the west 320 feet of the north side of the island. The west 320 feet of the north side of the island is bounded the east by the deadend canal. On October 27, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a permit for the "dredge, fill & construction" of a 223-slip docking facility, installation of 1157 linear feet of vertical concrete seawall, maintenance dredging of 7639 cubic yards of sand and silt to a depth of -5.5 feet NGVD, and installation of 2460 linear feet of riprap with hand-planted mangroves. The 1980 permit required sewage pump-out facilities and prohibited fueling facilities and liveaboards. The 1980 permit cautioned that the issuance of the permit did not constitute "approval or acceptance for dredging access channels to the Gulf of Mexico, via Wiggins Pass, for deep draft vessels." The 1980 permit authorized the conversion of what had been a peninsula to an island. Before completion of the work authorized by the 1980 permit, water could not flow past the land bridge that connected the peninsula to the mainland to the east. The 1980 permit authorized dredging to remove the plug at this location and replace it with a large culvert under the land bridge. Staff Remarks on a draft of the 1980 permit reveal that dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the north and south canals were "depressed or marginal" and that the removal of the plug could enhance DO levels by enhancing tidal flushing. Addressing the draft of boats that would use the docking facility, Staff Remarks state: "Depth limitations at the River's entrance to the Gulf of Mexico should restrict the size of vessels capable of using this facility." However, the 1980 permit itself contains no limitations on the size of boats allowed to use the docking facility. The 1980 permit was not an operational permit. It was a construction permit that, by its own provisions, expired after three years. However, the 1980 permit was incorporated into a new 25-year submerged land lease entered into November 13, 1991, by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and Applicant or its predecessor in interest. The submerged land lease authorizes Applicant "to operate exclusively a docking facility in conjunction with the upland residential developments and private club, without fueling facilities, with sewage pumpout facilities, and without liveaboards, as shown and conditioned in Attachment A [the legal description], and the [1980 permit], Attachment B." The lease adds: "No dock or pier shall be constructed in any manner that would cause harm to wildlife." Applicant's predecessor in interest constructed the present docking facility pursuant to the 1980 permit. The docking facility consists of 190 slips on fixed docks. The dock facility has sewage pumpout facilities, but no refueling facilities or liveaboards. Pursuant to a construction permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in August 1992, Applicant reconfigured and renovated 40 slips in the northeast corner of the existing facility. The 1992 permit contains no restrictions on boat size. Under existing exemptions from permitting, Applicant has redecked the walkways and finger piers. In early 1994, Applicant placed 24 mooring piling at the northwest corner of the island. Applicant has obtained a Collier County building permit for the installation of 99 additional mooring piling, which will be installed if this permit is not granted. Until the recent work, Applicant's docking facility was not maintained and, except for the recent work, is now in poor condition. During the winter season, only about 40 slips are leased, entirely in the northeast corner. About half that many are leased in the summer. Some of the boats using the existing docking facility draw four feet of water or more and have beams of just under 16 feet. If Applicant does not obtain this permit, it will continue to undertake exempt construction activity in conjunction with the development of the spoil island. Applicant plans to construct three residential towers on the island that will contain 136 condominium residences, as well as a 35,000 square foot yacht club facility. The marketing of the upscale condominiums would be facilitated by the improved docking facility resulting from the renovations and reconfiguration sought in this permit application. Proposed Development By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida dated January 12, 1993, Applicant, as owner, requests a permit for the removal of the existing 190 wooden boat slips and construction of 190 new slips with excavation. Applicant proposes the installation of 105 slips on floating docks and 85 slips on fixed docks. Applicant requests DEP approval to fill in the southwest corner of the deadend canal, dredge out a large U- shaped basin in the remainder and east of the deadend canal, dredge narrow strips of sovereign submerged bottom on the west and south sides of the docking facility, extend the walkway docks farther waterward of the west and south sides of the spoil island, and reconfigure the slips. Applicant proposes to remove existing mangroves on the west and south banks of the deadend canal and the south 100 feet of the east bank, as all of this area would be dredged. Applicant would enhance existing mangroves along the west and south sides of the island, where Applicant would also remove nuisance exotics. By letter dated June 4, 1993, Applicant states that it plans to install three channel markers along the western boundary of the boat channel west of the docking facility to mark nearby seagrass beds, as well as manatee education signs at the docking facility. The June 4 letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is in Class II waters. The letter notes that the existing docks have been infested with marine boring organisms and must be replaced to extend their useful life. Attached to the June 4 letter is a draft Agreement & Covenant Running with the Land. The agreement contains signature lines for DEP and Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., even though the introductory paragraph states that the agreement is between DEP and Applicant. The agreement contains lines for signatures to be acknowledged by a notary, but no lines for signatures to be attested by witnesses. The agreement provides that, unless DEP permits, there shall never be installed in the facility any fueling facility, boat maintenance facilities, bait houses, wet bars, or "related non-water dependent uses." The agreement provides that the "marina shall only be operated in a manner consistent with the Conklin Point Yacht Club Rules and Regulations which shall contain the provisions set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto." The agreement requires all members of the yacht club to sign a Membership and Mooring Agreement, which shall inform members of all restrictions and conditions of marina operations. The Agreement & Covenant Running with the Land requires Applicant to monitor and enforce water quality provisions attached in a document titled, "Long-Term Water Quality Program for Conklin Point Yacht Club." The document specifies data sampling and analysis methodologies and provides that, if permitted improvements are "directly related" to violations of water quality standards or a trend toward such violations, Applicant shall enact "necessary remedial measures approved by [DEP] in advance[,]" including a "reduction in the number of available boat slips in the basin." The document calls for checking the water column monthly for oils and grease, fecal coliform bacteria, detergents, and biological oxygen demand (BOD). The document calls for checking sediments annually for aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, and lead. In the document, Applicant assumes liability for violations of DEP rules, statutes, and water quality standards, if Applicant fails, through wilful neglect or gross negligence, to monitor or enforce the water quality provisions. The Rules and Regulations attached to the June 4 letter require Applicant's Harbormaster to inspect the condition of overboard discharge systems upon the arrival of a boater intending to lease a slip and pump out any self- contained holding tank, seal any onboard head to prevent its use, and give the boater a key to the upland sanitary facilities. The Rules and Regulations prohibit the pumping of bilges except in the event of emergency and prohibit liveaboard docking, which is defined to mean vessels with habitants docked for more than two consecutive days or seven days in any 30-day period. The Rules and Regulations require the Harbormaster to implement the water quality monitoring program specified by DEP. Also attached to the June 4 letter are water quality reports from Davis Analytical Laboratories. The water quality data reveal violations for oil and grease and copper. Oil and grease readings range as high as 14 mg/l, which is 9 mg/l over the state maximum. Copper readings are very high at 40 and 50 ug/l with the state maximum at 2.9 ug/l. Lead readings are flawed by the use of a detection limit exceeding the maximum level permitted by state water quality standards. In response to the June 4 letter, DEP, by letter dated June 29, 1993, advised Applicant of the problems with the water quality data. Applicant submitted new data indicating no violations and explained that laboratory errors accounted for the earlier reports of water quality violations. Applicant's explanation is partly credited. With the submission of additional date, Applicant has shown that water quality violations do not exist at the docking facility, although issues concerning the public interest remain as to copper and oil and grease. On July 5, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Intent a permit for the renovation and reconfiguration of the 190-slip docking facility. The July 5 Notice of Intent prohibited boats with a beam greater than 14 feet or a draft greater than three feet from mooring at the facility. The July 5 Notice of Intent permitted the requested dock renovations, as well as dredging, filling, removal of mangroves, and other work. Applicant timely protested the restrictions on beam and draft. Rather than file a formal petition, Applicant obtained from DEP repeated extensions of time within which to file a timely petition. In the meantime, the parties negotiated the size restrictions. Within the original timeframe for filing a petition to challenge the July 5 Notice of Intent, no other party filed a petition or request for extension of time. Eventually, DEP and Applicant reached an agreement on size restrictions. DEP issued a second Notice of Intent to Issue permit on December 21, 1994. The December 21 Notice of Intent approves construction of 105 slips on floating docks on the west and south sides of the docking facility and in the center of the U-shaped basin, plus 85 slips on fixed docks. All slips would be uncovered except for the 13 slips on the floating docks in the center of the U- shaped basin and the 10 slips on the fixed dock in the east part of the north side of the docking facility. The allocations and locations of fixed and floating docks and covered and uncovered slips are unchanged between the two notices of intent. Other unchanged provisions authorize Applicant to remove all existing docks and piers, remove mangroves along the east and south sides and part of the west side of the deadend canal, dredge 1.12 acres of uplands and 0.76 acres of submerged bottom to convert the deadend canal into a U- shaped basin, replace a concrete seawall, dredge 0.5 acres of submerged bottoms along the south and west shorelines of the island, construct a new docking facility to accommodate 190 slips including 23 covered slips, install channel markers and seagrass information signs along the west side of the docking facility and along the main channel from the docking facility to Wiggins Pass, replace exotic vegetation with mangroves along the west and south sides of the docking facility, provide sewage pumpout facilities, install manatee warning signs, and prohibit boat maintenance, fuel facilities, and over-water fish cleaning or disposal. The material changes feature a liberalization of the size restrictions to permit the following mix of boats: 95 slips limited to boats with drafts of three feet or less, 60 slips limited to boats with drafts of up to four feet, and 35 slips limited to boats with drafts of up to four and one-half feet. The December 21 Notice of Intent permits 10 slips to accommodate boats with beams of up to 16 feet and restricts the remaining 180 slips to boats with beams of no more than 14 feet. DEP also required Applicant to acknowledge that the new size restrictions are not to be construed as an approval by DEP for more frequent or extensive dredging of any navigational channels or an indication by DEP of the need for such dredging. Two more changes in the proposed permit were added at the request of Collier County. One requires Applicant to include with all boat slip rental and sale agreements a disclosure of navigational issues at Wiggins Pass, including the use of a three-foot draft design standard for dredging and the establishment of navigation depths only for boats with up to three-foot drafts. The other change added at the request of Collier County requires Applicant to promise that it will not request any extension of the submerged land lease area for the docking facility. This condition limits the length of boats that can dock on the west, south, and west 320 feet of the north side of the island. The Notice Letter accompanying the December 21 Notice of Intent advises of a point of entry for "any person whose interests are substantially affected by the proposed changes in [the above-described conditions.]" Petitioners timely filed petitions challenging the December 21 Notice of Intent. However, Petitioners never challenged the July 5 Notice of Intent. This recommended order requires revisions to the December 21 Notice of Intent for Applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. The required revisions arise out of the liberalization of size restrictions authorized by the December 21 Notice of Intent. The revisions to the December 21 Notice of Intent concerning copper arise in part from the fact that larger boats would have larger hulls, which would contain more copper for release into the water. Also boats with deeper drafts would disturb the bottom more often and resuspend the copper presently on the submerged bottom. The revisions to the December 21 Notice of Intent concerning copper, oil and grease, and the form of the Agreement & Covenant Running with the Land arise from the fact that the ability to accommodate larger boats assures that the docking facility will moor more boats, which would release more copper and oil and grease into the water and increase the importance of the required revisions concerning copper and oil and grease, as well as the revisions guaranteeing that the Agreement & Covenant Running with the Land is enforceable and recordable. Wiggins Pass System The Cocohatchee River empties into the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass, which is the northernmost of nine inlets in Collier County. Wiggins Pass is five miles north of Clam Pass and 5.9 miles south of Big Hickory Pass. Applicant's docking facility is about three-quarters of a mile east of Wiggins Pass. The beaches north and south of Wiggins Pass are undisturbed. A state preserve and County park run 1.5 miles north of the pass, and a state recreation area extends a little over a mile to the south of the pass. The Cocohatchee River from east of the Conklin Point docking facility west to Wiggins Pass is known as the East Channel. About a quarter mile east of the pass, the East Channel is joined by the North and South channels. The South Channel is a dredged waterway that runs about a mile through a mangrove swamp to Vanderbilt Lagoon, which has been extensively dredged and filled to serve the canalized subdivision known as Naples Park. There is no interior waterway access to Clam Pass. The south end of the Vanderbilt Lagoon is enclosed by land. The North Channel is also a dredged waterway through a mangrove swamp. This area is less developed than the area to the south of the Cocohatchee River. The North Channel leads to a small lagoon and then meanders through several more small lagoons until it reaches Little Hickory Bay, which separates Bonita Shores from the Gulf beach. Little Hickory Bay connects to a smaller bay that leads directly to Estero Bay. Big Hickory Pass links Estero Bay directly to the Gulf of Mexico. Applicant's docking facility is immediately north of the channel of the East Channel and about one-quarter of a mile east of the North Channel. Between the docking facility and the North Channel is a large mangrove island, smaller mangrove islands and oyster bars, mud flats, and, just west of the docking facility, seagrass beds. Boats from the Wiggins Pass Marina and County boat launch do not use the North Channel, but instead pass between Applicant's docking facility and the seagrass beds to reach the channel of the East Channel. The County boat launch is immediately across from the northeast corner of the Applicant's docking facility. The County boat launch provides 45 wet slips and handles 20,000-25,000 launches annually. Next to the County facility is a U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary facility, which has several slips. Just to the north of the County boat launch and about 150 yards to the northeast of Applicant's docking facility is the Wiggins Pass Marina. This is a full service marina with two boat lifts including one with a 45-ton capacity, gas and diesel refueling facilities, 15 wet slips, and 400 dry stacked slips in buildings. Boat repairs, fish cleaning, and boat launches take place at the Wiggins Pass Marina. The marina stores boats ranging in length from less than 20 feet to a 50-foot Grand Banks with a beam of 15 feet and draft of five feet. The 50-foot Grand Banks is among the largest boats on the Wiggins Pass system. Over 700 boats are presently using the system, including several commercial boats, although 96 percent of these boats have drafts of less than three feet. A number of marinas and docking facilities are upriver of Applicant's docking facility. They include the Island Marina, which provides 80 wet slips and accommodates large boats at the Vanderbilt Drive bridge, and the Vanderbilt Yacht and Racquet Club, which accommodates boats of up to 50 feet in length. Vanderbilt Drive is a north-south road about one- eighth of a mile to the east of Applicant's docking facility. Vanderbilt Drive crosses the Cocohatchee River just south of where it is joined by the road serving Applicant's docking facility. A major arterial road, US Highway 41, is about one mile east of Vanderbilt Drive and also crosses the river further upstream. The estuary contains some oyster beds and seagrass beds. It provides shelter and food for juvenile fish and shellfish. The Wiggins Pass estuary is small and not particularly robust. The estuary is stressed by various factors, but is in equilibrium. The drainage of the Cocohatchee River is not especially large, about 16,000 acres, and, to the east and south, includes areas converting from agricultural to urban land uses. The small drainage, as well as upriver water control structures, limits freshwater infusions and results in relatively high salinities. The estuary is surrounded by a mangrove forest and swamp of at least 1000 acres. The thick mangrove buffer between the estuary and most upland development provides good nutrient uptake. The water of the estuary is stained dark tan, probably from the nearby vegetation. The shallow estuary is relatively well flushed. There is no silty sedimentation in the main channel of the river and East Channel. There is relatively little silty sedimentation around Applicant's docking facility, with the most around the northeast corner, which is the area most heavily used at present. The sand and shell fragments constituting most of the bottom would resettle quickly if disturbed by a prop. Silty sediments exist in the seagrass beds, but these beds are not extensive and are largely limited to the shallows west of Applicant's docking facility. Some of these seagrass beds are in intertidal zones; most of them are in depths of 0-2 feet. Bathymetry Mean low water in the area of the proposed docking facility is -0.25 feet NGVD. This means that, if the elevation of a spot is -5 feet NGVD, water depth, at mean low water, would be 4.75 feet. Mean lower low water in the area is -0.65 feet NGVD or almost one-half foot lower than mean low water. During September, water elevations in the area exceed mean low water 95 percent of the time and exceed mean low water by at least one foot 64 percent of the time. During December, water elevations in the area exceed mean low water 83 percent of the time and exceed mean low water by at least one foot 41 percent of the time. September and December mark the extremes in typical water depths. Averaging all 12 months, water elevations in the area exceed mean low water 89 percent of the time and exceed mean low water by at least one foot 52 percent of the time. The shallowest sides of the docking facility are its west and south sides. The shallowest side is on the south, which is closest to the main channel, where the bottom elevations drop off rapidly from the docking facility to the channel. Numerous short finger piers attached to walkways presently extend from the south and west sides of the docking facility. At mean low water, water depths where the finger piers join the walkway are shallow. At the west end of the south side of the docks, water depth is about 3.5 feet at mean low water. A few slips to the east, water depth decreases to about two feet at mean low water. Depth varies between these values past the midpoint of the south side, where water depth decreases at one point to 1.25 feet at mean low water. Moving toward the east end of the south side of the docks, water depth increases to four feet for a few slips until it decreases again to 2.5 to 3 feet at the east end of the south side of the docking facility. Water depths are slightly greater at the end of the finger piers along the south side. At the west end, depth at mean low water is 5.5 feet. Moving east, depth decreases to the low point of 3.85 feet, but quickly increases to 6 feet by the midpoint. The end of the finger piers on the east half of the south side of the docking facility is typically about 4.5 to 5 feet deep at mean low water. The west side readings are not much different. At mean low water, where the walkway joins the finger piers, depths start at 3 feet at the south end of the west side, then dip to 2.5 feet before returning to 3.5-3.75 feet until reaching the north end of the west side, where depths drop to 2.25 feet briefly before returning to 4.25-4.5 feet. Water depths at the end of the finger piers on the west side drop off more quickly than do depths on the south side. At the south end of the west side, depths at mean low water are about 7.25 feet. Moving north, depths range from 6.5 to 7 feet until the area of the north end of the west side, where depths drop to 5.75 feet briefly before returning to more than 6.5 feet. The water is deeper on the north side, west of the deadend canal. Where the walkway joins the finger piers, depths at mean low water are 4.2-5.5 feet. Depths at the end of the finger piers are about 5.75-7 feet. East of the deadend canal, depths are reported only at the end of the finger piers and are about six feet. The deadend canal has long docks running along its west and east banks. Depths at mean low water along the longer west bank of the canal range from 3 feet at the south end to 4.75 feet at the north end, with most of the readings under 4 feet. Along the east bank, depths range from 4.5 feet at the south end to 5.25 feet at the north end, with most of the readings under 5 feet. Water depths at mean low water at the outer limit of Applicant's submerged lease (90 feet to the south and west) are greater. To the south, depths are generally 6 feet at mean low water with one reading as low as 4.4 feet nearer the southwest corner. To the west, depths are generally 8-9 feet at mean low water. At 200 feet, depths to the south increase to 11-12 feet, as this is the location of the main channel. At 200 feet to the west, depths are all between 8 and 9 feet. Between 200 and 300 feet to the west of the docking facility, water depth at mean low water decreases to as little as 2 feet. Seagrass beds and small islands appear in this area, especially off the southwest corner of the docking facility. Water depths increase much faster off the north side of the docking facility. At 45 feet off the west end of the north side of the docking facility (which is the limit of the submerged land lease), depths are about 6-7 feet at mean low water. Depths are over 7 feet, 45 feet off the east end of the north side of the docking facility. The channel that leads to Wiggins Pass Marina is about 100 feet off the west end of the north side of the docking facility; at this point, depths are about 10 feet. This channel with similar depths runs about 220 feet off the east end of the north side of the docking facility. Depths in the waters on the east side of the island are fairly uniform. Shallowest at the culvert in the middle, bottom elevations of the northern waterway along the east shore of the island range from -4.0 NGVD to - 5.0 NGVD, with most of the readings closer to -5.0 NGVD. Depths in the center of the waterway range from no different to about one foot deeper with the average about one-half foot deeper. The southern waterway along the east shore of the island is also shallowest at the culvert and has slightly deeper depths along the shore, with one reading at -6.0 NGVD, but most at around -5.0 NGVD. Depths in the center of the waterway range from no different to a little over one foot deeper with the average between one-half and one foot deeper. The proposed activity would alter the bathymetry through dredging in three areas and would relocate the walkways and finger piers into deeper waters. Applicant proposes dredging to -5.0 NGVD two strips of submerged bottom along the south and west sides of the island. The southern strip comprises 0.28 acre and runs along the entire side, starting at an average distance of 30 feet from the edge of the island. At its widest, the strip to be dredged is 25-30 feet; at other points, it is only a couple of feet wide. The western strip comprises 0.22 acre and runs along the entire side, starting at an average distance of 35 feet from the edge of the island. At its widest, the strip is 20 feet; at its narrowest, it is about 5 feet wide. Applicant proposes more extensive dredging in the area of the deadend canal. Proposing to fill 0.9 acre at the southwest corner of the canal, Applicant proposes dredging to -6.0 NGVD the remainder of the area (0.76 acre) presently constituting the deadend canal (except for an existing mangrove fringe along the west bank of the deadend canal) and surrounding submerged bottom and 1.12 acres of the existing uplands forming about half of the east half of the north side of the island. This dredging would convert the deadend canal into the U-shaped basin that would be enclosed by seawalls except along the above- described mangrove fringe. The proposed dredging along the west side of the island would largely be confined to an area under the existing walkways with some dredging extending out under a few of the existing finger piers. The proposed dredging along the south side would be under the existing walkways and would extend out to the edge of most of the finger piers as well. The proposed dredging of the basin would, at -6.0 NGVD, create an area shallower than all of the surrounding undredged area, except for a small area about 100 feet east of the northwest corner of the existing deadend canal, where depths are and will remain between -5.1 and -5.6 NGVD. The proposed walkway on the south side would extend 35 feet from the edge of the island. Three ramps would connect the walkway to the island. The proposed dredging is centered under the proposed walkway, extending up to 5 feet waterward of the walkway adjacent to five slips at the western ramp and up to 12 feet waterward of the walkway adjacent to 16 slips near the middle ramp. For the most part, the waterward edge of the dredging along the south side of the island extends to the end of the existing finger piers and blends in well with the existing bathymetry by not creating holes. The proposed finger piers extend about eight feet from the boundary of the submerged land lease, where the bottom elevations are at least -5.0 NGVD, and in most cases at least a couple of feet deeper. The proposed walkway on the west side would extend 40 feet from the edge of the island. Four ramps would connect the walkway to the island. The proposed dredging is mostly behind and landward of the proposed walkway, except that it extends about 3 feet waterward of the walkway adjacent to two slips in the middle of the west side. For the most part, the waterward edge of the dredging along the west side of the island extends less than midway along the existing finger piers. Due to the greater depths on the west side, the proposed dredging, even though less extensive than on the south side, blends in well with the existing bathymetry by not creating holes. The proposed finger piers extend about eight feet from the boundary of the submerged land lease, where the bottom elevations are all -8.0 to -9.0 NGVD. Navigability The Wiggins Pass system is shallow. It is shallow in the pass into the Gulf of Mexico, and it is shallow in the East, North, and South channels. Water depths are relatively good in the narrow channels north and west of Applicant's docking facility. These are the channels run by the large boats using the Wiggins Pass Marina and the many boats using the County boat launch. Off the north side of the island, channel elevations are as deep as -10 feet NGVD. Few bottom elevations rise above -9.0 feet NGVD on the west side, but the elevations never rise above -8.0 feet NGVD. One of two areas of deep water on the west side, where bottom elevations reach -9.3 feet NGVD, is where the channel on the west side narrows to 175 feet between a small island and the boundary of the submerged land lease off the west side of the island. These depths are close to the submerged land leased to Applicant. The second area of deep water to the west of the spoil island is located east of the shallow water and islands that are about 300 feet off the southwest corner of the submerged land leased to Applicant. Here, bottom elevations are as low as -9.9 feet NGVD. Turning toward the west, at the southwest corner of Applicant's island, bottom elevations are around -10 feet NGVD furthest from the two islands and shallows off the southwest corner of Applicant's island. Approaching the south shore of the East Channel, bottom elevations rise from below -8.0 feet NGVD to -6 to -7 feet NGVD. For the most part, bottom elevations in the channel of the East Channel are at least as low as -7.0 feet NGVD until, just west of the mouth of the South Channel, they decrease to at least -10 feet NGVD. The channel of the East Channel runs toward the north shoreline and begins to shallow as it approaches the area just east of Wiggins Pass. However, turns in the channel are gentle and sight lines are good. The channel running 100 feet seaward of Wiggins Pass is shallow; most elevations are -5 to -6 feet NGVD, but one section of the channel has elevations of no deeper than about -4.5 feet NGVD. The choke point of the river is where the shallowest water occurs in the narrowest width of the river. The choke point between Applicant's docking facility and Wiggins Pass is at a point about 750 west southwest of the southwest corner of Applicant's docking facility. The north side of the choke point is marked by two small islands, which lie 200 feet west southwest of the two larger islands off the southwest corner of Applicant's docking facility. North of these islands are the flats and seagrass beds. One hundred forty-five feet south of these islands is the south shore of the river. Two exhibits address directly the navigability of the choke point. Applicant Exhibit Number 17, which was prepared by a navigational expert with no particular expertise in bathymetry, consists of a scaled cross-section of the choke point with water depths at mean low water from one shore to the other shore. The exhibit also includes a scaled 45-foot Grand Banks with a 4' 6" draft, as the vessel would appear approaching, departing, and turning (in full profile). By matching the water line on the map to the water line on the vessel, one can demonstrate that two such vessels could safely pass each other without grounding at the choke point at mean low water. The other exhibit is FWF Exhibit Number 196, which is a blow- up of a drawing prepared by Applicant's engineers. The bottom elevations shown on this map for the choke point reflect that the deepest water, roughly in the center of the channel, is -6.2 feet NGVD, not -7.25 feet NGVD, as shown in Applicant Exhibit Number 17. The engineers' drawing is more credible, given its source. The presence of a bottom elevation as deep as -7.25 feet NGVD on Applicant Exhibit Number 17 is questionable even on the face of the exhibit, which contains what appear to be circular 7 choke point, but none in the choke point itself. However, even if the water depth in Applicant Number 17 is reduced by one foot, two 4' 6"-draft vessels can navigate the choke point, even while passing each other. However, the clearance is not more than three inches at mean low water. Collier County has prepared an Inlet Management Plan for Wiggins Pass. Although it is only in draft form, the Inlet Management Plan is near completion, and its data are relatively reliable, even though its draft recommendations, which reflect policy decisions, may be changed at the time of final adoption. Wiggins Pass is a natural inlet that has been open since 1885. From 1885 through 1927, the pass migrated 250 feet north, where it has since remained. Before 1952, the pass closed periodically. After the north and south channels were dredged in the 1950s, a small unstable inlet two miles north of Wiggins Pass closed. In the 1980s, Collier County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considered a small-boat navigation project. The Corps recommended dredging the north channel to 50 feet wide and seven feet deep, the south channel to 50 feet wide and six feet deep, and the channel through the pass to 1300 feet long, 150 feet wide, and nine feet deep. The project was never undertaken due in part to the County's environmental concerns. A short time later, in March 1984, Collier County sponsored more modest dredging in the area. The County limited the dredging to the pass and did not dredge the East Channel, rejecting one recommendation to dredge the East Channel to six- foot depth. A hurricane quickly erased the results of the 1984 dredging. The pass was dredged next in late 1990 and, after the contractor was fired before the job was complete, in late 1991. The pass was last dredged in late 1993. Since the 1990-91 dredging, the East Channel from the Vanderbilt Drive bridge to just east of Wiggins Pass has been posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. The navigational improvements achieved by each dredging project have been short-lived. The Inlet Management Plan reports that the "performance of the Wiggins Pass navigation channel has been inadequate." Presently, the draft Inlet Management Plan recommends continued use of the three-foot design depth criteria. The Corps of Engineers has used the three-foot design depths criteria for prior dredging projects. This does not mean that the water is only three feet deep. A depth design criteria of three feet means a total project depth, at mean low water, of eight feet, which accommodates a draft of three feet after allowances of an additional two feet for waves, one foot for squat, and two feet for keel clearance. Squat is the tendency of many boats to dip deeper into the water between idle speed and planing speed. The occurrence and extent of squat at identical speeds varies from boat to boat, depending mostly on hull configuration. There is no significant squat when vessels are operating at no- wake speed. Two factors underscore the navigation difficulties faced by deep-draft boats using the Wiggins Pass system, at least under certain conditions. The Coast Guard maintains two boats at its small docking facility next to the County boat launch. The drafts of these boats is about four feet. The Coast Guard officer in charge of the boats refuses to allow them to leave the dock due to the absence of safe hull clearance. Second, the County has posted at its boat launch facility signs warning boaters that vessels with drafts over three feet are "not appropriate for passage through Wiggins Pass." On balance, Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed docking facility will not impede navigability. At mean low water, clearances are tight at the choke point for the deepest-draft vessels that would be permitted under the proposed permit. Without additional evidence, the refusal of the Coast Guard officer to use the four-foot draft vessels does not warrant a contrary finding as to the navigability of the system by deep-draft boats. Deep-draft vessels presently use the Wiggins Pass system. The decision of the Coast Guard officer may represent a balancing of the navigation risks against the limited utility or need for the launching of such vessels. The decision of Collier County to post the warning sign at its boat launch may also represent an abundance of caution to warn boaters of the difficulties of navigating Wiggins Pass, at least under certain conditions. Water Quality General The little-studied Wiggins Pass estuary is not particularly susceptible to eutrophication for several reasons. The estuary receives limited freshwater inputs due to the small drainage of the river and upriver water control structures. The content and amount of runoff will change with further urbanization, but the drainage was formerly devoted to agricultural uses, whose runoff is ordinarily nutrient-rich. The prevailing composition of the bottom in the area is sand and shell particles with little silty sedimentation, except in the seagrass beds. The area around the docking facility is not especially silty. Eutrophication could be facilitated by the disturbance of the existing silty sediments, which could lead to increased turbidity, destruction of submerged vegetation, reduced DO levels, and increased biological oxygen demand. In this case, though, use of the renovated docking facility would not likely disturb the silty sediments. Silty areas are mostly coextensive with seagrass beds in the area, and there are relatively few areas inhabited by seagrasses. Various natural factors, such as high salinities, have discouraged the propagation of seagrasses. The dark-colored water reduces the depth at which sunlight can penetrate, which stresses existing seagrasses and reduces the depth at which they can grow. Much of the existing seagrasses are covered in algae, which reduce the photosynthetic potential of the seagrass. If the limited silty sediment in the vicinity of the docking facility were stirred up, it would not travel west into the seagrass beds. Instead, silty sediments would travel north on an incoming tide and south on an outgoing tide. Once pulled south into the channel of the East Channel, the sediments would travel west through the relatively deep channel and out into the Gulf. Nor would the existing seagrass beds be disturbed by the bigger vessels authorized in the December 21 Notice of Intent. Vessels with drafts of three feet or more would not traverse the seagrass beds, which would for the first time be marked if the permit were granted. Scarring of the beds and suspension of the sediments are caused by smaller boats cutting across the shallows to save time or entering the shallows to fish. Larger boats could produce larger wakes, which would disturb the silty sediments in the shallows. However, the idle speed, no wake zone adjacent to the seagrass beds limits vessels to speeds that produce little, if any, wakes. It is likely that Applicant's boaters would comply with the speed limit in the vicinity of the seagrass beds due to their proximity to the docking facility. Such boats, especially larger vessels, would still be navigating their departure from or approach to the docking facility when they were in close range of most of the seagrass beds and would be operating slowly for that reason. Although other boaters might disregard the speed limit, the presence of more boating activity around Applicant's docking facility might require slower operation of boats passing by. Flushing of most materials from the area would probably be satisfactory following the proposed renovation. Flushing is the periodic removal of water, including materials in the water column, by tide and sometimes wind. Flushing would be aided by the addition of the U-shaped basin and dredging to shallower depths than the surrounding bottom. The flushing calculations of Applicant and DEP are very rough and represent no more than approximations. Even so, Applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the reconfigured docking facility would adequately flush, if revisions are made to the December 21 Notice of Intent concerning copper, oil and grease, and the covenants. While satisfactory to preclude findings of water quality violations, Applicant's explanation of the initial readings of these materials does not answer all concerns about copper and oil and grease in the water. Copper and oil and grease remain problematic due to the initial readings, questionable methodologies of data collection and analysis in subsequent water quality reports (including insufficient data collection and, in the case of oil and grease, the collection of data when an unreasonably small number of boats were in the area), anecdotal reports of sheens in the water, and the introduction of more, larger boats if this permit were issued. Copper Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. When released into the water column, copper sinks relatively rapidly to the bottom. Copper will remain trapped in silty sediments until it is disturbed and resuspended into the water column. The record does not reveal whether copper is so heavy relative to tidal action as to resist transport once it sinks to the bottom of a sandy or shell-dominated bottom. Due to copper's toxicity, it is added to hull paint in order to discourage marine life, such as barnacles, from attaching to the hull and damaging the boat. The copper in hull paint prevents marine life from attaching to the hull as long as copper is exposed on the hull surface in its unoxidized state as cuprous oxide. The primary means by which copper is exposed and enters the water is through ablation. Ablation is the shedding of paint through physical abrasion. Physical abrasion typically takes place by running the boat through water or sanding or scrubbing the hull in order to expose cuprous oxide. Ordinarily, as much as 95 percent of the copper released by ablating paint is released while the boat is running. However, physical abrasion may also release copper if the hull grinds against the bottom while the boat is in operation or moored. The hardness of the paint determines its resistance to ablation. A harder paint releases copper more slowly, per unit of abrasion, than a softer paint. There is no optimal hardness of paint because of the different operating conditions to which boats are subject. A small boat normally operated at low speeds requires a softer paint more susceptible to ablation than a boat operated at high speeds in open water. Use of the softer paint on a boat operating at high speeds releases copper into the water at a greater rate than is necessary to discourage barnacle formation. However, owners of boats suitable for harder paints may purchase softer paints because their initial cost is cheaper. The copper in the soft paints will wear off at excessive rates in the presence of high levels of abrasion. Improper use of soft paints necessitates more frequent repainting of hulls and results in depositing greater amounts of copper into the water column than would be deposited if the hardest suitable paint were used. Although they would be in deeper water due to the proposed dredging, the new walkways and landward ends of slips would remain in fairly shallow water at mean low water. Some hydraulic disturbance of silty sediments will take place when props operate in these areas. While mean low water is the lowest water condition relevant for navigability determinations, lower water conditions are relevant in assessing the effects of moored boats on submerged bottom around the docking facility. Owners may reasonably be expected to operate their boats in the Wiggins Pass area less frequently, if at all, during the relatively infrequent events of water lower than mean low water. But during much of this time, the boats will be moored at the docking facility, and, in many slips, deep-draft boats will grind on the bottom. The rough flushing calculations offered by Applicant and DEP provide reasonable assurance that materials other than copper and oil and grease suspended in the water column will be quickly carried by tides out to sea. Such materials have not been detected at the same levels as copper and oil and grease, and most of these materials have different characteristics in terms of amenability to tidal-born transport. However, the record does not preclude the reasonable possibility that heavy copper does not remain suspended as long and may merely be redeposited in the same area, thereby taking longer to flush. The initial data were consistent with such a possibility. In any event, the rough flushing calculations of Applicant and DEP do not provide reasonable assurance as to copper, unless Applicant is required to take additional precautions as to copper. By ensuring the use of the hardest suitable paint on the hulls of boats moored at Applicant's docking facility, Applicant can reduce the loading of copper into the water around the docking facility and thus provide the necessary reasonable assurance as to copper. The December 21 Notice of Intent must be revised in several respects for Applicant to provide reasonable assurance as to copper. The December 21 Notice of Intent must require that owners of boats moored at the docking facility shall be required to obtain, by purchase or otherwise, their hull paint from Applicant, when such paint is needed. Applicant shall provide, by sale or otherwise, the hardest suitable paint, given the intended use of the boat based on its size and operating characteristics. This requirement shall be added to the rental and sale documents and the Rules and Regulations of the docking facility, and shall further provide that, after commencing use of the docking facility, boats receiving an application of copper hull paint not obtained from Applicant shall be prohibited from using the docking facility. Additionally, the December 21 Notice of Intent must revise the "Long- Term Quality Program for Conklin Point Yacht Club" to require monitoring the water column monthly and sediments semi-annually for copper. The portion of the "Long- Term Quality Program for Conklin Point Yacht Club" imposing liability on Applicant for water-quality violations is rendered ambiguous by the final clause cited in Paragraph 21 of the recommended order appearing to condition liability on the failure of Applicant to monitor or enforce water quality provisions. The language must instead read that Applicant is liable for all violations of law and for all violations of the "Long-Term Quality Program for Conklin Point Yacht Club," including failures to monitor or enforce water quality provisions. Oil and Grease As was the case with copper, oil and grease are of especial concern because Applicant initially reported excessive levels of these materials in the area of the docking facility. As was the case with copper, the rough flushing calculations of Applicant and DEP do not adequately address oil and grease, which tend to remain at or near the surface of the water column and are loaded into the water at times and locations--namely, during the operation of the engine or bilge pump. The evidence fails to establish whether small or large engines tend to contribute more oil and grease into the water through blow-by or otherwise. However, engine operation releases oil and grease, and poorly tuned engines contribute unnecessarily large volumes of oil and grease into the water. Significant amounts of oil and grease are present in the bilge water. Restrictions on the voluntary operation of bilge pumps are ineffective to prevent the discharge of oil and grease from the bilge into the water column. Bilge pumps also operate automatically and cannot be disconnected without risking the loss of the boat. However, by limiting the amount of oil and grease released into the water from bilge pumps and poorly tuned engines, Applicant can provide reasonable assurance as to oil and grease. One of Applicant's expert witnesses, Captain Irons, has designed an absorbent pad that, when installed in a hull, traps oil and grease, but not water. The December 21 Notice of Intent must be revised to require that owners of boats moored at the docking facility for more than two consecutive days or seven days in any 30-day period must obtain, by purchase or otherwise, such or similar absorbent pads at intervals recommended by the manufacturer or such more frequent intervals determined after inspection by the Harbormaster, who shall discard the used pads in a manner approved by DEP. The requirement shall further provide that boats without absorbent pads shall be prohibited from using the docking facility. As to the operation of engines, the December 21 Notice of Intent must be revised to require Applicant to inspect all boats moored at the docking facility or obtain mechanics' certifications, when the boats first moor at the facility and at appropriate subsequent intervals, to ensure that the engines are properly tuned so as to release into the water as little oil and grease as practical, given the size, type, and age of the engine. The requirement shall further provide that boats with improperly tuned engines shall be prohibited from using the docking facility. The requirements concerning oil and grease shall be added to the rental and sale documents and the Rules and Regulations of the docking facility. Manatees Manatee use of the Wiggins Pass area, including the area of Applicant's docking facility, is not significant. Manatee deaths have been significant elsewhere in Collier County, but not in this area, despite the presence of many boats, including deep-draft boats. Although manatee may travel through the Wiggins Pass area, they do not remain for long in the area, probably due to the relatively high salinities and lack of suitable forage. Applicant has thus provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not endanger manatees in the area. Alternative Development Options and Cumulative Impacts Applicant and DEP suggested comparative review of the impacts of the proposed activities with activities that Applicant could legally undertake without the requested permit. However, Applicant's threat to proceed with the development of the docking facility if the application were denied is not credible. The shallow slips discourage use of the current docking facility by the deep-draft boats that are central to Applicant's upscale marketing scheme. Very few slips on the south side and only a few more slips on the west side would accommodate deep-draft boats without substantial grinding of boat hulls into the bottom. Marketing resistance would be high with respect to these unattractive slips where expensive boat hulls would risk damage--a fact implicitly acknowledged by Applicant in its investment of considerable time and money in the present application and repeated demands for expedited resolution of this case. Besides marketing difficulties, exploiting the existing permits could present additional problems. More extensive use of the north side of the docking facility would likely contribute to water quality violations in the poorly flushed deadend canal and possible the waterway to the east of the island. For these reasons, the arguments of Applicant and DEP based on alternative development, which DEP casts as a "cumulative-impact" issue, have been disregarded. Petitioners raise a cumulative-impact issue in warning that, if Applicant obtains the requested permit, other marinas will wish to expand to accommodate more deep-draft boats and deeper dredging of Wiggins Pass and the East Channel will result. Permitting issues are determined on a case-by-case basis. The water quality and bathymetry, among other factors, at an area marina may or may not be comparable to the water quality and bathymetry at Applicant's docking facility. As found in this case, the existing depths in the East Channel (at least at and west of Applicant's docking facility) and Wiggins Pass are sufficient to allow boats of the drafts involved in this case. Nothing in December 21 Notice of Intent precludes DEP from making the necessary case-by-case determinations if area marinas apply for permits to expand. Petitioners' concern that the issuance of the December 21 permit would result in the deeper dredging of the East Channel and Wiggins Pass is misplaced. The proposed activity will put more, deep-draft boats on the water. The County resists deeper dredging. This permit informs boaters that the current design standards for the channel and pass will not change. Numerous environmental factors would presumably oppose navigational factors arising from the presence of more, deep-draft boats using the Wiggins Pass area. And boaters using Applicant's docking facility have been warned in about every way imaginable that the Wiggins Pass area requires competent, prudent navigation, and they are taking the area as they find it with dredging in accordance with a three-foot design depth.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Environment Protection issue the permit that is the subject of the December 21 Notice of Intent with the following new conditions: The Agreement & Covenant Running with the Land shall be revised to identify as the grantor or grantors the parties holding the fee simple to the spoil island and holding as lessee the submerged land lease and require all necessary authorizations, attestations, and authorizations to render the covenants enforceable and recordable. The permit accompanying the December 21 Notice of Intent shall be revised to require Applicant to incorporate into the rental and sale documents and Rules and Regulations of the docking facility the language described in Paragraphs 116 and 122-24. The "Long-Term Water Quality Program for Conklin Point Yacht Club" shall be revised as indicated in Paragraph 117. ENTERED on October 2, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 2, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioners' Proposed Findings 1-5 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, except with further details as to meaning of three-foot design standard. 6-9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10: see paragraph 5. 11-15: rejected as subordinate. 16-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22: adopted or adopted in substance as to December 21 permit. 23-24: adopted or adopted in substance. 25: adopted or adopted in substance except as to substantial areas of seagrass. 26: adopted or adopted in substance except more than two. 27-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: adopted or adopted in substance, but not that shallow. 30: adopted or adopted in substance, but the productivity of the seagrass is questionable. 31-34: adopted or adopted in substance, although the estuarine system is stressed. 35-36: adopted or adopted in substance. 37: see paragraph 5. 38-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40-41: rejected as subordinate. 42: adopted or adopted in substance as to squat, although no squat is probably more prevalent at no wake speeds. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45-49: rejected as subordinate. 50-54: adopted or adopted in substance. 55-57: rejected as subordinate. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59-63: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 64: adopted or adopted in substance under certain conditions. 65-67: rejected as subordinate and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 68-69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: adopted or adopted in substance. 71-73: rejected as subordinate. 74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 77-82: adopted or adopted in substance. 83-87: rejected as irrelevant for findings concerning navigability. 88-89: adopted or adopted in substance. 90: adopted or adopted in substance, but, as to pollution, subject to findings in recommended order concerning such matters as location of silty sediments and direction flow of resuspended sediment. 91: rejected as irrelevant for findings concerning navigability. 92: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 93-94: adopted or adopted in substance. 95-108: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 109-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 111: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 112: rejected as irrelevant. 113: adopted or adopted in substance, substituting "ablation" for "erosion." 114: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, at least, based on the present record, in significant amounts relative to copper introduced into marina waters through ablation. 115-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 117: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 128-30: rejected as subordinate. 131-36: adopted or adopted in substance. 137-39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 140-41: rejected as irrelevant. 142-63: rejected as subordinate and repetitious. 164-67: except for copper and oil and grease, rejected as irrelevant given location of seagrass beds and direction of tidal flow. 168: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 169-70: rejected as irrelevant. 171: adopted or adopted in substance to some extent. 172-74: rejected as irrelevant. 175: adopted or adopted in substance except as to explanation. 176: rejected as subordinate. 178-212: rejected as unnecessary, although some of these proposed findings were adopted in connection with findings, generally in agreement with the objective of this section of Petitioners' proposed recommended order, that Applicant's threat to develop the docking facility without the subject permit was not credible. 213: adopted or adopted in substance. 214-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 216: rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Applicant's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except for last sentence. 2 (second sentence and reference to permit's expiration): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 2 (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5-7: adopted or adopted in substance to extent reflected in recommended order. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9-14 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 14 (remainder): rejected as repetitious. 15-16: rejected as subordinate. 17: adopted or adopted in substance. 18: rejected as subordinate. 19: adopted or adopted in substance with some exceptions. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21: adopted or adopted in substance except for stability of inlet and characterization of draft Inlet Management Plan. 22 (first four sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (fifth through seventh sentences): rejected as subordinate. 22 (eighth sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 23-24: adopted or adopted in substance except as to extensive development. 25-26: adopted or adopted in substance except as to the docking facility being virtually surrounded by marinas. 27: rejected as subordinate. 28: rejected as repetitious and subordinate. 29: rejected as unnecessary. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except for the auxiliary unit. 32-34: adopted or adopted in substance except that mean low water is applicable for navigability, not mooring, considerations. 35-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48: rejected as subordinate. 49: adopted or adopted in substance. 50: rejected as unnecessary. 51: rejected as recitation of evidence. 52: adopted or adopted in substance as to mean low water. 53: rejected as repetitious and subordinate. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, not without the additional requirements set forth in the recommended order. 55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-59: rejected as subordinate. 60-61: adopted or adopted in substance. 62: see paragraph 54. 63: adopted or adopted in substance. 64-65: rejected as recitation of evidence. 66-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75: rejected as recitation of evidence. 76-81: adopted or adopted in substance. 82: rejected as subordinate. 83-93: adopted or adopted in substance, but see paragraph 54. 94: adopted or adopted in substance. 95-96: adopted or adopted in substance. 97: adopted or adopted in substance. 98: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 99: adopted or adopted in substance. 100-01: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of contrary findings in the recommended order. 102-05: rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 106: adopted or adopted in substance except as to copper and oil and grease, unless the additional requirements are adopted. 107: rejected as repetitious. 108-10: rejected as subordinate. 111: adopted or adopted in substance. 112: rejected as subordinate. 113 (except last sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 113 (last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 114: adopted or adopted in substance, as long as moored boat is not grinding on bottom. 115: rejected as unnecessary. 116: adopted or adopted in substance. 117-18: rejected as subordinate. 119-20: adopted or adopted in substance with the additional requirements noted in the recommended order. 121 (first half): rejected as recitation of evidence. 121 (second half): adopted or adopted in substance with the additional requirements noted in the recommended order. 122: rejected as legal argument and repetitious. 123: rejected as legal argument. 124: adopted or adopted in substance with the additional requirements noted in the recommended order. 125: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and unnecessary. 126: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 127-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 130: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on DEP's Proposed Findings DEP submitted only proposed conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 David G. Guest Karen A. Putnal Dean E. Aldrich Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund P.O. Box 1329 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Deborah A. Getzoff E. A. "Seth" Mills, Jr. Erin R. McCormick Fowler White P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601 John L. Chaves Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a private yacht club located on Lots 5-11 inclusive, Block D, Bayside No. 6, Unit A, 830 South Bayway Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida. Founded some five years ago, the club provides a wide array of boating and social functions for its membership. It sits on the north side of Bayway Boulevard and is approximately 50 feet east of Clearwater Pass Avenue. The property is rectangular shaped and has dimensions of approximately 420 feet by 120 feet. The widest portion of the property fronts Clearwater Harbor to the north and Bayway Boulevard on the south. The yacht club is situated within an area currently zoned by the City as CTF-28 (high density commercial-tourist). This District provides for a complete range of motel-hotel developments with a major emphasis on tourism. The primary permitted uses and structures within the CTF-28 District are combination hotel, motel, apartment and business buildings, apartment houses, townhouse developments and restaurants. A number of special exceptions to the permitted uses are authorized within a CTF-28 District. These include, inter alia, three types of marina facilities, namely, Type A (pleasure craft docking), Type B (launching ramp site, commercial) and Type C (private marina). The City has never classified Petitioner under any of these categories. Upon obtaining a Type C classification, a property owner may engage in 12 separate uses of the property as a matter of right, and a thirteenth upon obtaining specific Board approval. These include: (a) sales and service facilities, (b) boat slips (excluding covered boat slips or dry storage unless specific Board approval is obtained), (c) boat handling equipment, (d) boat and gear storage, (e) launching facilities, (f) fuel station, (g) lockers and sanitary facilities, (h) restaurant facilities (not advertised), (i) club house, (j) motel or boatel, (k) recreational facilities (not commercial), (l) park or picnic area, and (m) automobile parking. Petitioner now engages in all permitted activities except items (a), and (j). It does not wish to engage in the latter three uses even if the application is granted. All activities presently conducted are done so in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On the east side of Petitioner's property is a multi-story restaurant and lounge while to the west lies a 4-story condominium complex (Bayside 17). Directly across Bayway Boulevard and to the south are two high-rise condominium complexes, one of which is still under construction. Boat docking facilities are located on the waterfront throughout the area, including that of Petitioner and adjacent property owners. The area may be generally described as a combination of high density residential and commercial buildings and structures catering to the tourist or part-time resident. The proposed reclassification is compatible with the surrounding properties and the character of the land. Its uses fit within the general scheme of zoning for a CTF-28 District, and are consistent with the Land Use Plan. The chief concern of the adjacent property owners who testified is a fear that reclassification of the property will diminish the view of the water now enjoyed across the clear space on the west side of Petitioner's property. However, since no change in the use of the property will be made by virtue of reclassification, the existing view should not be impaired.
Findings Of Fact Permitting History This development was originally known as North Largo Yacht Club and was owned and developed originally by the Largo Brand Corporation. That developer and this development received Development of Regional Impact approval from the county commission of Monroe County in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes in 1974. In 1975 that developer received various permits and water quality certifications authorizing construction of the "Atlantic Marina" (the existing marina) from both the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The marina was ultimately constructed and no further governmental approvals are required for the present Respondents to make full use of the existing marina which has an authorized boat capacity of 363 boat slips, which are situated around long piers extending from the shore of the marina basin out into the marina basin. Sometime after construction of the marina, the mortgagee, through foreclosure, obtained title to the property from Largo Brand Corporation which has since dissolved, ultimately conveying it to City National Bank as trustee under a Florida land trust. City National Bank filed the present application in its original form but in February, 1984, conveyed the property to Port Bougainville, Inc. and Port Bougainville Enterprises, Inc., the present Applicant/Respondent who succeeded City National Bank as the real parties in interest prosecuting the present permit application, as modified. The permit application as it presently exists is the result of various modifications suggested by the Department of Environmental Regulation and agreed to by the present Applicant/Respondents, which had the effect of causing the Department to change its position from one of denial of the permit to one of approval, by issuance of a Notice of Intent to grant the permit in June of 1984. The Applicant/Respondent's original decision to apply for the new permit was based upon aesthetic considerations and a desire to redesign and change the theme of the development and the marina itself. It is thus proposed that the boat-mooring facilities be moved to the periphery of the basin and the piers or docks extending out into the basin be removed. This would create an open body of water in the basin, more in keeping with the "Mediterranean Village Harbor" theme of the entire development. The original application filed in early 1984, called for realignment of the docks rather than removal, and the creation of various baylets or inlets along the access canal and contained no proposal for shoaling the existing boat basin. The Department used this original proposal as a basis for its Intent to Deny the Permit Application since it considered those modifications unacceptable in terms of the likelihood that it might degrade water quality or at least not improve the ambient water quality then existing in the marina basin and entrance canal. The Respondents acceded to the demands of the Department, employed additional consultants and redesigned the project, including the creation of a sophisticated hydrographic model by which, and through which, the Respondents ultimately proposed (with the Department's agreement) to revise the application as follows: Shoal the entire basin and canal system to no more than -6 Ft. mean low water; widen and sculpt the access canal on the west side and install solid flow baffles on the east side so as to create a sinusoidal or curving configuration in the canal to improve mixing of the water in the canal and basin system; remove the existing docks and construct new docks around the periphery of the basin so as to provide a decreased number of boat slips and capacity for a total of 311 boats; install one bubble screen surrounding the fueling facilities to contain oil and fuel spills and another at the entrance of the access canal where it opens into the Garden Cove Channel so as to prevent organic materials from outside the canal and basin system from being carried into it with tidal currents and wind; installation of "batter boards" along the length of the waterward or easterly and southeasterly side of the access canal so as to protect the mangroves along that side of the canal from the effects of wake energy caused by boats. After further "free-form" review, investigation and negotiation, the Department required, and the Respondents agreed to make the following additional modifications to the marina development plan: Shoal the north end of the basin to -4 ft. mean low water; slightly reconfigure the access canal and install an additional wave baffle on the eastern periphery of the canal in order to improve circulation in the western portion of the boat basin; relocate the proposed fueling facilities more toward the rearward center of the basin in order to further isolate them from the outstanding Florida waters lying at the outward, "seaward" end of the project; provide funds necessary to more adequately mark the Garden Cove Channel in accordance with the requirements specified by the Department of Natural Resources so as to further ensure that boat traffic and possible propeller damage could be prevented to the marine grassbeds and other marine life on either side of the Garden Cove Channel; install tidal level gauges at the mouth of the Garden Cove Channel which would show boaters wishing to use the channel and access canal the current, minimum depths prevalent in the channel and canal; grant to the Department a "conservation easement" binding upon the Respondent which would provide the following: That no hydraulic connection be made from any of the upland lakes on the Respondent's property to the marina, to the canal, to the channel or any other state waters; an agreement not to employ boat lifts that would require a dredge and fill permit from the Department; an agreement not to apply for additional permits so as to increase the number of boat slips in the marina beyond the 311 presently proposed; to develop a reef management plan in conjunction with the Florida Audubon Society to include educational programs for the public as well as underwriting the installation of mooring buoys and adequate channel markers in the John Pennekamp Reef Park, the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) involved in this proceeding. During the time of construction of the proposed marina modifications, the entire marina will be closed and isolated from the waters of Garden Cove by the installation of a dam at the entrance to the marina access canal where it opens into Garden Cove. The dam will remain in place until turbidity resulting from the dredging, filling and construction has settled and the waters in the marina have achieved the turbidity standards required by the Department and its rules contained in Chapter 17 3, Florida Administrative Code. All the proposed modification work will be performed landward of the surveyed mean high water line. Additionally, a storm drainage system will be installed which will prevent any stormwater runoff from being deposited into the marina harbor. The stormwater runoff will be routed away from the harbor through the use of a reverse gradient around the periphery of the harbor and runoff from the adjacent real estate development will be thus routed away from the harbor into grass swales to be collected into holding areas for filtration. Ambient Water Quality in the Marina and Garden Cove Respondents tendered Dr. Earl Rich, a professor of Biology at the University of Miami as an expert in ecology and he was accepted without objection. Since 1974 he has conducted extensive studies with attendant sampling, observation and water quality monitoring in the Port Bougainville Marina. Beginning in 1983 he also performed certain chemical analyses on the water samples from the marina. Photographs taken underwater in the marina basin were adduced and placed in evidence, as were the results of the observations and tests. It was thus established that there is a dense growth of macroalgae in the marina at a depth of about six feet, although at the nine-foot level there is much less such growth. Concomitantly, the deeper holes in the marina basin exhibit a low dissolved oxygen reading and are largely responsible for the frequently occurring, low dissolved oxygen reading in the marina system that is lower than acceptable standards embodied in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Garden Cove itself is a shallow embayment open toward the Atlantic Ocean in a generally easterly direction, characterized by a rocky or coarse sediment bottom substrate. It is characteristic of this area that organic materials such as seaweeds and the like, are transported by currents and winds into Garden Cove from other marine areas. The underwater vegetation in Garden Cove is lush. There are extensive shallow-water marine grass beds. These vegetated areas support a large population of marine animals and fish. Dissolved oxygen is, of course, essential to the metabolism of these organisms. The two primary means for oxygen to enter the water are as a result of photosynthetic activity of marine plants and through oxygen entering the surface waters through waves and wind action, with that surface water being distributed and mixed so as to disburse the action throughout the water column. The term biochemical oxygen demand or BOD, refers to the rate at which organisms use oxygen in the water. If there are many active photosynthetic organisms, as in Garden Cove, the production of oxygen during the day, as for instance by the seagrasses in the cove, exceeds the BOD of the plant and animal community in the water body, in which case the plants contribute excess oxygen to the air. During hours of darkness, plant and animal communities in the water body will continue to consume oxygen although there will be no photosynthesis to contribute oxygen. Therefore, in an underwater community rich in plant and animal life, such as Garden Cove, the dissolved oxygen level is typically higher during the daylight hours and BOD readings will be decreased during the night, reaching a low level during the early morning hours. Frequently, dissolved oxygen readings in Garden Cove are below state standards for waters of the State under natural conditions. These low DO readings occur commonly in Garden Cove during conditions of calm wind. Indeed, Dr. Rich has measured dissolved oxygen in Garden Cove below the four-part per million state standard even before the present marina and canal were ever constructed. Since the opening of the marina there have been times when the DO readings in Garden Cove have been lower than those inside the marina itself. Hydrodynamics of the Modified Marina The proposal by the permit applicant calls for widening the access channel into the marina to approximately 130 feet by excavating upland on the western bank of the canal. The access canal will then be reconfigured during the excavation into a winding or curving fashion. That adjustment, along with the solid flow baffles to be installed on the eastern bank of the canal, will set up a winding or sinusoidal flow of tidal currents. The sinusoidal flow will induce secondary helical currents that will move water repeatedly from the top to the bottom of the canal and then back, thereby significantly improving the mixing action. The improved mixing of the waters in the canal and marina will serve two purposes: It will disperse any pollutants so as to reduce pollutant concentrations. It will disperse the oxygen introduced into the surface waters by wave and wind throughout the water column. Dr. Bent Christensen is Chairman of the University of Florida Hydraulics Lab. Using knowledge gained in hydrographic modeling as a result of work he performed in carrying out a "Sea Grant study" under the auspices of the University of Florida, Dr. Christensen designed a computer model of the proposed Port Bougainville marina and access canal by which, in turn, he designed the winding access canal which will emulate nature in producing a turnover of water induced by current velocities and canal configuration, rather than by temperature differences in water. The computer model takes into account tidal flows and wind-induced velocities which are important to mixing of water within the system. Using this model, Dr. Christensen was able to redesign the marina canal so as to improve water quality within that system as well as improving the quality of water leaving the system into Garden Cove. Drs. Lee and Van de Kreeke are ocean engineers who testified as expert witnesses on behalf of Petitioners. They sought to dispute Dr. Christensen's conclusion that the redesign would improve DO levels within the marina based upon their independent determination that a different design would increase flushing times for the system. Flushing, however, is a simplistic way of analyzing water quality. Flushing analysis assumes that the only means to improve water quality is to replace water within the system with water from outside the system. The Christensen model and the resulting proposed design of the marina and canal, on the other hand, improves water quality through internal mixing action. The proposed design actually reduces flushing time, but more importantly, maximizes dispersion of water within the system and along with it, dissolved oxygen. The design introduces dissolved oxygen throughout the water column in the system through internal mixing because of the sinusoidal configuration of the canal and the helical currents the canal configuration sets up. The concentration of pollutants measured by the State Water Quality Standards are, in turn, reduced through the same hydrodynamics. Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that a key ingredient in his model was the assumption he had regarding BOD in the system, but he had no idea what the BOD extant in the Port Bougainville system might be. He also admitted that his calculations did not take into consideration the factor of wind mixing of the waters in the system and acknowledged that wind can and does play an important role in flushing and mixing the waters in marinas. Finally, Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that he could not fully analyze Dr. Christensen's assumptions in arriving at his model and design because he did not have the information Dr. Christensen relied upon. Thus, Dr. Christensen's model and design is accepted as more credible than that of Drs. Van de Kreeke and Lee. That model and design establishes that the quality of water exiting the marina into the Outstanding Florida Waters in Garden Cove will be improved by the modifications proposed to be constructed in the marina. Impact on Benthic Communities The northerly end of the marina basin will be sloped from -6 feet to - 4 feet. This widening and shallowing of the marina basin and access channel will have the affect of promoting the growth, regrowth and welfare of the benthic communities in the waters in the marina and access canal by providing greater light penetration to the bottom of the marina. The widening will have the effect of causing a greater portion of the marina bottom to be lighted during the day since at the present time, the bank and surrounding trees shade the marina basin for substantial portions of the day. The increased light penetration will result in more photosynthetic activity by the plant life in the marina and canal such that increased amounts of oxygen will be produced enhancing the dissolved oxygen levels of the marina waters. In that connection, the Respondents' expert, Dr. Rich, has examined a number of marinas and observed very healthy benthic communities in marina harbors more densely populated with boats than will be the proposed marina. Another significant improvement in the ecological status of the present marina will be the placing of a bubble screen device across the mouth of the entrance canal. This will have the effect of preventing floating organic materials such as sargassum, from entering the marina. Marinas typically experience problems related to dissolved oxygen levels in their waters because of an accumulation of floating organic material which tends to settle to the bottom creating excessive biochemical oxygen demand in their decomposition process, thus resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels. Thus, the bubble screen will aide in decreasing BOD. Likewise, a bubble screen device is proposed to be placed around the fueling facilities in the rearward portion of the marina basin so as to prevent the spread of pollutants such as spilled oils, greases and fuels, which may occur during routine fueling operations from time to time. Inasmuch as the modifications have been shown to cause some improvement in the dissolved oxygen level in the waters of the marina basin and access canal, it has been demonstrated that the modifications will not interfere with the conservation of marine wildlife and other natural resources. The bodies of water consisting of the marina, the access canal and Garden Cove, at the present time support a diverse marine community that can be expected to continue to flourish. Neither will the proposed activity destroy any oyster or clam beds, as none have been shown to exist in these waters. Dr. Rich has monitored waterways and offshore waters at a nearby, comparable marina, The Ocean Reef Club, for approximately ten years. He has discerned no noticeable impact on the benthic communities within that marina from a very heavy boat traffic during that period of time. The boats using The Ocean Reef Club Marina are typically larger than will use the Port Bougainville facility and boats of over 100 feet in length commonly use The Ocean Reef Club. In terms of impact on offshore benthic communities, he has observed no visible impact by the heavy amount of boat traffic using The Ocean Reef Marina from the standpoint of comparison of the experience with that marina, in terms of biological impacts, with the marina configuration proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. In short, the proposed marina configuration as contrasted to the existing permitted marina, represents an improvement because of the increased surface area providing increased oxygen exchange through wave and wind action, the shoaling which will also be beneficial to dissolved oxygen levels because of its enhancement of photosynthetic processes, and because of the proposed marina management steps designed to prevent floating organic material from entering the marina. Thus, the modified design was shown to provide a meaningful improvement in general ecological conditions within the marina and hence, in the offshore waters of Garden Cove with which the marina waters exchange and mix. Water Quality Dr. Eugene Corcoran is Professor Emeritus of the Rosensteel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. He is a marine chemist and performed a chemical analyses of the samples taken for the water quality report presented by Respondents and in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 17. Dr. Corcoran also performed the analyses for the ongoing water sampling program conducted by Dr. Renate Skinner, an expert witness for Petitioners. The Petitioners accepted Dr. Corcoran as an expert witness without objection. The proposed marina modifications involved in this permitting application were thus shown to cause no violations of the state standards for dissolved oxygen. The Rio Palenque Water Quality Study in evidence indeed documented a number of instances where dissolved oxygen fell below the state minimum standards of four parts per million in the present marina. Once the modifications are completed there still may be instances when dissolved oxygen falls below that standard, but this can be attributed to natural phenomenon and the same relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen below state standards have been observed in the offshore waters of Garden Cove itself, which is an Outstanding Florida Water. Significantly, however, it was established that concentrations of dissolved oxygen will likely increase as a result of these modifications, the inducement of the helical flow and consequent vertical mixing, the widening of the entrance canal and the shoaling of the bottoms in the marina basin and canal, as well as the measures to be taken to reduce the deposition of organic materials in the marina basin and canal. The only water quality criteria placed in contention by the Petitioners and Intervenors were dissolved oxygen and copper. Although a number of Petitioners' witnesses were qualified to address the impacts of water quality on different marine organisms, only Dr. Curry was qualified as an expert in water quality. Dr. Curry's chief concern was with dissolved oxygen, which is based on the Rio Palenque Study showing present low values for dissolved oxygen in the marina as it now exists. Dr. Curry did not establish that the proposed modifications to the marina would themselves cause dissolved oxygen violations and although he testified in great detail concerning his attempt to compute the amount of copper that might be given off by the bottom paint of boats in the modified marina, he was unable to render an opinion that the modifications would increase copper levels in the waters in the marina. He acknowledged that his calculations were based on the assumption that all the boats in the marina would be using copper anti-fouling paints and his calculations took into account an assumption that all boats in the marina would have been painted within the last six months as a base datum for his calculations. Additionally, he did not take into account dispersion ratio associated with the hydrodynamic forces present in the modified marina. Dr. Curry admitted that he had never studied copper levels in a marina environment and was unable to explain the chemical effects on water quality of copper anti-fouling paints on boats. In all his sampling, he only found one instance of a violation of the Chapter 17-3 copper standard and that occurred within only a few millimeters of the hull of a newly-painted boat. Other fallacies involved in Dr. Curry's analysis, concern the interaction of seawater with copper bottom paint. Since seawater has a high level of carbonates, copper is immediately complexed with organic compounds such as amino acids. These organic complexes are soluble in seawater and indeed, serve as important nutrients to phytoplankton and other beneficial marine organisms. Thus, that portion of the total complex copper precipitated from the water as well as that portion taken up as nutrients would not be included in any concentrations of copper measured in the water column. Additionally, Dr. Curry's computations did not take into account the dispersion of copper concentrations due to mixing or flushing, which has a direct beneficial effect on reducing concentration of copper and other pollutants in the water column. Thus, Dr. Curry's computations are deemed immaterial, inasmuch as he effectively admits that the modifications to the marina would not be detrimental to water quality. The proposed modifications will not lower ambient water quality or significantly degrade the waters in the adjacent John Pennekamp Park, Outstanding Florida Waters. Since it has been established that the marina modifications will likely improve water quality within the marina, logically, the water quality in the park to some degree might be slightly improved, since those waters exchange with the waters in the marina. There will be no increase in concentrations of any pollutants emanating from the Port Bougainville Marina as a result of the proposed modifications. Improved Marking of Garden Cove Channel The Applicant/Respondents are required to provide improved navigational markers in the Garden Cove Channel, pursuant to an amended development order. Additionally, they have agreed to provide additional channel markers delineating the channel from the entrance of the existing marina to the Garden Cove Channel proper. With regard to the Garden Cove Channel, the Respondents proposed to move certain existing channel markers to more clearly identify that channel, which would make certain portions narrower and thereby eliminate boat passage over some shallow areas populated with marine grasses which presently lie within the marked channel. The Respondents also propose to add two more sets of channel markers at the seaward end of Garden Cove Channel, so that boats exiting the channel heading for the open sea will avoid certain shallow marine grass areas. The reason for this is to avoid possible damage to valuable marine grass beds and habitat which might be caused by prop wash of boats crossing over them, as well as actual contact and scouring by propellers or potential grounding of boats navigating these areas. Witness Balfe for the Respondents has personally sounded the entire length of the access canal and Garden Cove Channel. His soundings are admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 19 and are unrefuted. It was established therefore, that the bottom configuration of that access channel is basically flat or level with only minor irregularities of less than a foot. There are no rock outcroppings or other obstructions which would reduce the controlling depth below -4 feet. Approximately 12 times per year however, during "spring tides", the ambient water depths in Garden Cove could be expected to go below -4 feet mean low water. During these times the tide will be approximately 6 to 8 inches below that normal depth. Perhaps 25 times per year the tide is 5 or 6 inches below that mean low depth. The tide gauge which will be installed will alleviate possible propeller scouring or grounding damage to grass beds and marine habitat, especially during those abnormally low tides, by providing boat operators a current, up-to-date reading on the depths in the channel. Contributions to Park Management Plan and Marina Management Plan The Applicant/Respondents have agreed to a permit condition requiring a financial commitment to assist in the management of the John Pennekamp Park so as to minimize the adverse impacts of human use of the park. This commitment includes the provision of $75,000 to finance a study and preparation of a management plan for the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, which would include study of the feasibility of inaugurating an entry permit system for the park, a testing and certification program for commercial dive boat operators, possible zoning of the park to allow recovery of the park coral reefs and other resources from the impacts of human visitors, locating central mooring buoys so that visitors' boats could be moored in one restricted area to avoid damage to the delicate coral reefs, and more adequately marking the boundaries of the park. Additionally, the Respondents propose to provide $50,000 for the acquisition of anchor buoys to be placed in selected areas of the park and to provide funds to finance a survey to more adequately identify the boundaries of the park. In order to more adequately protect water quality in the marina itself, the Respondents will inaugurate a marina management program which will include the installation of a sewage pump-out station and a pump-out station for motor oils and lubricants for boats. In addition to the two bubble curtains mentioned above, the Respondents will install containment booms and absorption mats and will permanently maintain a boat equipped with absorption mats and suction equipment for fuel or oil spill removal. The marina will prohibit persons living aboard boats, to prevent attendant sewage effluent problems, and will prohibit maintenance of boats, including painting and oil changes, while boats are in the water. This program will be monitored by an environmental protection officer employed by the condominium association under the auspices of the Respondents. Many of these marina management provisions are already requirements of the Port Bougainville 1982 development order referenced above. Management of Inland Lakes Although the use and management of the inland lakes on the Respondents' property is not directly involved in this permit application proceeding, the Respondents' overall development plan encompassed by the development order anticipates that at a future time a boat lift will be installed on upland so as to allow boats to be transferred from the inland lakes into the marina for access to marine waters. The lakes themselves, however, will not be open to the marina or to outside waters. The inland lakes are anticipated to provide dockage for approximately 200 boats, with restrictions against boats exceeding 20 feet in length and boats powered by combustion engines. The Respondents expect that the inland lakes will be primarily used by small boats such as canoes or sailboats. Dry storage for boats will be maintained on an upland site, for which a DER permit is not required. Neither is a permit for a boat transfer facility required since it would not involve dredging, filling or construction over water. The use of a boat lift, although it itself is not an issue before the Hearing Officer in this proceeding, would involve the potential of 200 or more boats using the marina in addition to those for which the marina is designed. This could occasion substantially greater risk for oil, grease and fuel spills and other potential damage to the water quality within the marina and damage to the marine habitat, grass beds and so forth within the marina, the access canal and the adjacent areas in Garden Cove. Accordingly, the conservation easement which the Respondents have agreed to provide the department as a condition to the grant of this permit should be amended to add a further condition on a grant of this permit so as to preclude placement of boats from the inland lakes into this marina or its access canal. Such a restriction would comport with the proposed uses of the inland lakes established by Mr. Scharenberg, the Respondent's principal. Boating Impacts Boat traffic in the Garden Cove Channel area is significant, with heaviest traffic occurring on the weekends when approximately two to three hundred boats navigate that channel. The boats presently using Garden Cove Channel come from a number of nearby marinas, small fishing docks and dry storage areas, as well as from a marked navigational channel called North Creek that provides access to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic Ocean from Largo Sound. A small canal cuts through Key Largo into Largo Sound and provides access for boats in the Black Water Sound and other areas on the west side of Key Largo to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic. The Port Bougainville Marina is expected to attract a mix of boats typical for such a marina, with the majority consisting of boats ranging from 27 to 35 feet in length. Approximately 20 percent of the boats will likely be in the 40-foot range. Larger boats may also use the marina, particularly those with a shallow draft, and "shoal draft" sailboats of 35 to 40 feet can safely navigate in and out of the marina. The marina, as it would be modified, would permit use of boats with a draft of up to three and one-half feet, although deeper draft boats could use the marina by timing arrivals and departures for the high tide, which is a common mode of operation by boat operators in the Florida Keys and other marine areas. The Port Bougainville Marina will contribute approximately 30 to 50 boats to the Garden Cove boat traffic on an average weekend out of the possible 311 boats in the harbor as it is proposed to be constructed. There will be a lesser number of boat arrivals and departures during the weekdays. The primary users of boats in and out of the marina will be people who own condominiums in the attendant real estate development. Temporary visitors, not owning boats moored in the marina, would typically use the dive charter boats and other rental boats in the surrounding areas, such as at the Ocean Reef facility. The existing marina which is already permitted and can be fully used at the present time from a legal standpoint, could accommodate the same reduced number and sizes of boats as the proposed modified marina by simply removing some of the present docks and finger piers. The Respondents propose to maintain approximately 20 slips for boats which are not owned by condominium unit owners, and they anticipate operating six to seven deep-sea charter boats as well as five smaller skiff-type charter boats, and perhaps as many as two dive charter boats with additional demands for charters to be serviced by charter boats in the surrounding areas. Boating adverse impacts on the marine benthic communities inside and outside of the marina will be minimized by the construction configuration of the marina and boat slips, the shoaling and widening of the marina basin and canal, and the channel marking and tidal gauging provisions proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. These safety arrangements would be further enhanced by the above-mentioned restriction on the placing of boats into the waters of the marina and canal from the inland lakes. The configuration of the proposed modified marina and the shoaling will have a beneficial effect in rendering use by extremely large boats, which might cause propeller, wake or grounding damage to the marine benthic communities unlikely because of the inaccessibility caused by the intentional shoaling. Coral Reef Impacts Dr. Peter Glynn is a qualified expert in marine ecology and was accepted as an expert witness in that area with particular emphasis, through his long specialization, in the ecology of corals and coral reefs. He has researched the effects of sediments, herbicides, pesticides, oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, tidal effects and oil pollution on corals. He testified as a rebuttal witness addressing concerns raised by Petitioners' and Intervenor's witnesses with regard to boat traffic, attendant turbidity and possible synergistic effects on coral reefs caused by oils, greases, low oxygen levels and turbidity. Dr. Glynn has studied corals in many areas of the world including the Caribbean and the Florida Keys. The coral reefs in Florida are similar to those in the Caribbean area and belong to the same "biogeographic province." He has dived in and examined the Garden Cove area and found four species of small reef building corals in Garden Cove. These were found in the vicinity of a shipwreck near the channel entrance to Garden Cove and the remainder of the corals observed in Garden Cove were in the bottom of the boat channel running through Garden Cove. There were no corals observed on the grass flats and in shallower areas of Garden Cove. The corals occurring in the boat channel are in isolated colonies of less than a foot in diameter. The Petitioners and Intervenors attempted to raise the possibility of synergistic adverse effects on corals posed by combinations of oils, oxygen levels, temperatures and sedimentation or similar impacts. It was not shown how or at what concentration turbidity might combine with various oxygen levels, temperatures or degrees of light penetration to produce such effects, however. The only type of synergistic effects on corals Drs. Glynn and Corcoran have observed is that between oils and pesticides. Although this effect has been demonstrated in another study area far removed from the Florida Keys, no such pesticide and oil synergistic impact has been observed in the Florida Keys area, chiefly because it is not an agricultural area characterized by significant use of pesticides. Likewise it was not established that suspended sediments in the Garden Cove area could have an adverse effect on corals by reducing light penetration. In tropical areas such as the Keys, light penetration is often saturating or in greater quantities than are really needed for healthy coral growth and indeed, many corals in these areas have pigments that naturally shield them from excess light because these coral species actually can suffer from too much light penetration. Additionally, Dr. Glynn has observed good coral reef health and growth in areas that are highly turbid. It was not established that an increase of sedimentation deposit on corals will necessarily have an adverse impact, particularly because most corals can accept a substantial amount of fine-grain sediment deposition without adverse effect. The manner in which the proposed marina modifications will be accomplished will minimize sedimentation at any rate since the canal will be dammed off from Garden Cove until all work is completed and all sedimentation within the marina and marina access canal has subsided to levels compatible with the state standards for turbidity. In any event, there is no evidence that boat traffic in Garden Cove at the present time influences the distribution and health of live coral, particularly since the main coral abundance in Garden Cove occurs in the heavily-used boat channel at the present time. Likewise, Dr. Glynn established that sediments from any increase in boat traffic in Garden Cove will not likely drift out on the offshore reef tract and be deposited on the reefs to their detriment in any event, since the fine sediments occurring in Hawk Channel and in Garden Cove, are largely precluded from deposition on the offshore reefs because the waters over the reef tract offshore have very different physical characteristics. That is, there is distinct interface between the inshore and oceanic waters caused by the strong wave assault and current action near the reefs, which precludes the fine sediments from the inshore areas remaining in the area of the reefs. Finally, any increase in the number of people visiting the Pennekamp Park attributable to use of the modified marina will not inevitably lead to degradation of the reefs. By way of comparison, studies of Kaneoi Bay in Hawaii where a major pollutant source from human sewage caused degradation of the coral reefs, showed that when sewage effluent was subsequently directed away from the reefs, the reefs rejuvenated and repopulated and are now used extensively for recreational activities without observable biological degradation. These studies are consistent with studies Dr. Glynn referenced with regard to Biscayne Bay National Park, which have shown no significant degradation occasioned by human visitation of the reefs in that park. Those studies have not shown a significant difference between the health of the "controlled reefs" and the reefs which are allowed to be used for recreational purposes. It was thus not established that there will be any degradation of the corals in the near-shore areas of Garden Cove nor in the offshore reef areas occasioned by any increased boat traffic resulting from the modification of the marina. Indeed, it was not demonstrated that the mere modification of the marina, which will actually accommodate fewer boats than are presently permitted, will cause any increase in present boat traffic at all. Dr. Glynn, in the course of his teaching and studies in the field of marine ecology has become familiar with the causes and effects of Ciguatera toxin in marine environments. He recently participated in the study of possible Ciguatera toxin at the grounding site of the freighter Wildwood on Molasses Reef, some miles distant from the marina site. All cases reported of such harmful concentrations of this toxin have originated from open water, outer coral reef environments, and not from near shore areas such as those involved in this case, where seagrasses and mangroves are the dominant marine communities. Ciguatera toxin organisms require clear open ocean water with strong currents and well-developed coral reefs which are found offshore in the Keys and not in the near-shore mangrove-type environments. The cause of Ciguatera is a concentration of toxin in the food chain. Although the bacteria that cause Ciguatera Toxin in fish, and resulting harmful effects in humans, occur everywhere in marine waters, the bacteria are not a hazard because generally, conditions are not appropriate for the bacteria to multiply. The two main species of dinoflagellates, that have been associated with causing Ciguatera poisoning do not occur in an environment such as the Port Bougainville Marina. They are typically concentrated in larger fish such as snapper, grouper and barracudas which cause problems when they are eaten by people. These species are not generally found in the inshore mangrove and grassbed areas such as are involved in the case at bar. Thus, the concerns expressed by Petitioner's witnesses concerning the possibility of Ciguatera poisoning occurring because of possible damage to corals and coral death caused by the dredge and fill operations, and boat operation associated with the marina and Garden Cove are, in reality, only unsubstantiated speculation.
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, RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue the requested permit subject to the conditions incorporated in the agreement or "conservation easement" executed between the Department and the Respondents with the further condition added to that conservation easement such that the deposition of boats from the inland lakes system into the marina and its access canal be prohibited. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth J. Rickenbacker, Esquire 10500 Southwest 108th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Michael F. Chenoweth, Esquire 522 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Egan, Esquire, Robert Apgar, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SIERRA CLUB: UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; PAMELA BERYL PIERCE, and FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Petitioners, and DOAH CASE NOS. 84-2364 84-2365 FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., 84-2385 a non-profit Florida corporation; 84-2827 THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF IZAAK (Not consolidated) WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Intervenor-Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ASSOCIATES, LTD. a Florida limited partnership, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ENTERPRISE, INC. a Florida corporation, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact The City owns and operates a marina at the Godman Yacht Basin which is contiguous to Flamingo Canal a Class III body of water comprising a man made dead-end canal. Petitioners live along the Flamingo Canal. In 1924 DER issued a dredge and fill permit to the City of Cape Coral to allow the construction of 39 boat slips in the basin. That permit prohibited any boat and motor maintenance in the basin. In assessing the City's request for modification of this prohibition DER representatives visited the yacht basin and reinspected the facility and the land area from which water drains into the basin. Current regulations by the city prohibit the discharge of refuse or waste from boats in the basin. Nevertheless, as testified to by Petitioners' witnesses, refuse and waste is often discharged from boats and finds its way into Flamingo Canal. Petitioners' primary concern is that if boat maintenance is allowed, more boats will visit the basin and more fouling of the waters will occur. The survey by DER personnel found that the City had no equipment at the basin to contain or clean up an oil spill if one accidentally occurred, and that storm water run-off from one parking lot near the basin discharged more pollutants in the basin than could be expected from limited boat and engine maintenance. To alleviate the storm water run-off problem the City, as a condition to the removal of the boat repair prohibition, agreed to install infiltration trenches through which this run-off from the parking lot will pass before entering the basin. The City further agreed to provide oil/fuel spill control devices at the facility and to monitor the water quality in the basin and report its findings to DER. The infiltration trenches are designed to treat the first one-half inch of rainfall falling on this parking lot before it reaches the basin. The heaviest load of pollutants from paved surfaces used by automobiles is carried by the first surge of rainwater; therefore, a system designed to treat the first one-half inch of run-off is acceptable. The direct, untreated discharge of storm water into the yacht basin contributes more pollutants including oils, greases and heavy metals, to the basin than would the performance of minor boat and motor maintenance. Accordingly, the net result of allowing minor boat and motor maintenance coupled with the installation of the infiltration trenches will result in higher water quality in the basin. Petitioners contention that these infiltration trenches will treat only a small portion of the total storm water run-off entering the basin, while true, over- looks the maxim that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. No evidence was submitted that petitioners, as well as the majority of the population of the City of Cape Coral, are willing to pay the taxes required to raise the funds necessary to provide such treatment of all storm water run-off entering the basin. The permit proposed to be issued contains provisions which have been accepted by the City of Cape Coral. These include a requirement that the city provide oil/fuel spill control devices at the yacht basin; that all boat owners be provided with written information concerning protection of the basin's water quality; that only chlorine and biodegradable cleaning agents be used at the facility; and finally, the City submit to DER extensive water quality data for the basin through at least 1989, to permit a closer monitoring of the water quality in the basin by DER to insure acceptable water quality standards maintained.
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
Findings Of Fact Vroom acquired an existing, incomplete condominium project of 96 units on the ocean side of U.S. Highway #1 at mile marker, 83.2, Islamorada, Florida. The project, now called Beacon Reef, is to be finished as a luxury facility with complete recreational facilities, including those for water-oriented sports. In February, 1980, Vroom filed a short-form application with DER for a permit to construct a private 425 foot x 6 foot pier for the condominium with four-finger piers on "T" sections, ranging in length from 335 feet to 240 feet, spaced 55 feet apart, and install 97 pilings, a maximum 450 feet seaward so as to provide one boat slip for each unit. The old existing dock will be removed (DER #3). A subsequent revision (DER #4) aligned the proposed pier with the one of Petitioner, who owns the property adjacent to the south. Following DER's appraisal (DER #1 and #2) and Vroom's agreement to use a small boat and motor to move the construction barge (DER #6), DER noticed its intent to issue the permit on May 19, 1980 on the finding that, pursuant to Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, "the project will not adversely impact navigation, marine resources, nor water quality, providing the following stipulations are met: Construction shall not be initiated until Department of Natural Resources' approval is received. Construction barge shall be maneuvered in position with a small fifteen foot boat with a small 50 hp or less outboard motor. There shall be no fuel nor sewage pump-out facilities. No live-aboards shall be permitted. A day marker shall be placed approximately 30 feet waterward of each end of the outward "T" section to define and mitigate destruction of adjacent shallow water areas. Vroom accepted these restrictions and at the hearing, further agreed to place channel markers from the pier to the closest navigable point about 1/2 mile away so as to eliminate one of the concerns of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (DER #7). DER's two environmental specialists' testimony and appraisal concluded that the construction and use of the pier would not adversely impact on the water quality or biological resources nor interfere with navigation. The substrata is generally hard rock with scattered turtle grass and cuban shoal- weed found seaward as the water depth increases. This type of bottom is called "flats" as it is shallow with a uniform or gradually-sloping bottom; it is the typical feeding ground for one of the popular sports fish called Bonefish. Although these fish are easily frightened by the noise of a boat engine, the record does not reveal that this is harmful to the fish. The Petitioner speculated, surmised or opined that the use of the pier would damage or have an adverse impact on the water quality and marine resources, and interfere with navigation. However, beyond the allegations, no evidence was presented in support of these contentions.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Vroom International, Inc. to build a pier in connection with its Beacon Reef Condominium, Islamorada, Florida, subject to the restrictions stated in the intent to issue, together with the requirement that markers be installed and maintained on either side of a channel connecting the pier and the closest and best navigable waters. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H.M. Swann, Esq. GASTON, SNOW, ET AL. 2809 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 550 Coral Gables, FL 33134 H. Ray Allen, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Tittle, Esq. Post Office Drawer 535 Tavernier, FL 33070 Vroom International, Inc. c/o John P. Wilson Upper Keys Marine Construction Box 18AAA Key Largo, FL 33037 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Chapter 216.14, Laws of Florida, 1941, establishes the Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port District for the primary purpose of obtaining land and easements to be turned over to the U.S. Government in connection with various harbor and channel improvements in Volusia County. The name and authority was changed in 1963, 1965 and 1969, so that now it is called the Ponce de Leon Port Authority whose powers were expanded to include "long-range development of the facilities for ports and recreation facilities within the district and traffic through these said ports." (Exhibit 1). In 1964 the qualified electors of Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port District approved the issuance of $4,000,000 special obligation bonds for the purpose of creating port and harbor facilities. Federal legislation authorized the stabilization of Ponce de Leon Inlet conditioned upon local authorities, viz. the Port Authority, complying with certain provisions such as paying part of the cost, providing spoil disposal sites, easements, etc. and providing "necessary mooring facilities and utilities including an adequate public landing or wharf with provisions for the sale of motor fuel, lubricants and potable water, equal to all on equal terms." (Exhibit 4). Pursuant to such federal legislation the channel improvements were completed in 1970-71. The availability of mooring and harbor facilities was an element used in determining the favorable cost-benefit ratio for the channel stabilization project. (Exhibit 2). The Port Authority's application in 1971 to the then Department of Pollution Control for a permit to construct a port and marina facility north of Ponce de Leon Inlet was denied. Thereafter an extended search for a suitable site was instituted. Included in this study are plans for a waterfront park which are referred to in various exhibits but are not a part of or integral with the application here under consideration. The Volusia County Planning Department was retained by the Port Authority to work on site selection and site design. After surveying existing marinas and determining that a need for the proposed marina existed, the planners determined that to meet the expressed need for a marina the site would require a minimum of twenty acres to accommodate water and land based boating facilities. Also, the site must satisfy the following requirements: It must be located to serve both New Smyrna Beach and Daytona Beach. The land use in the vicinity of the site must be compatible with the proposed marina. The site must be readily accessible by both land and water. There should be a minimum conflict with vehicular traffic over bridges which need to be opened to allow boat traffic. Municipal services such as electricity, water and sewage disposal facilities must be available. Topography of site must be such as to accommodate the construction of a marina. The site must offer protection to moored boats from wind and wave action. Consultants were employed to locate potential sites within the study area and six sites were identified with potential for developing a marina thereon. Three of these sites were quickly ruled out because of ecological factors and access problems, and various studies were conducted over a six months' period to evaluate the plant and animal life occupying the other three sites. In 1976 the results of the investigations, studies and meetings with various government agencies were documented in Marina and Park Study (Exhibit 8) which constituted the recommendations of the Volusia County Planning Department as adopted by the Port Authority. Upon completion of the study it was determined that Site V comprising some 90 acres which was given to the Port Authority by the City of New Smyrna Beach to whom title had earlier been conveyed by the Trustees, Internal Improvement Trust Fund, offered the best site for the project. Part of this tract consisted of a spoil disposal site upon which the New Smyrna Power Plant had been built. In addition to spoil disposal in this area some dredging had been done both north and south of the power plant site to provide access by fuel barges and other boats. Thus part of the area had previously been disturbed by man's activity and was no longer pristine. This site is close to Ponce de Leon Inlet and boats going from the marina to the ocean would have no drawbridges to pass under; the site is readily accessible from U.S. 1; Municipal facilities are available at the site; an industrial park has been established at the airport across U.S. 1 from the site thereby providing space for businesses to serve the proposed marina; the topography of the site is suitable for a marina; and the site will provide protection from wind and waves to boats moored there. Plans for the construction of the proposed marina were prepared and submitted to DER for the issuance of a permit. The Port Authority's position in 1976, which is substantially the same as now, is succinctly stated in Exhibit 8, p. 5, as follows: The Ponce de Leon Port Authority is committed ideologically and contractually to the provision of these facilities and fulfillment of these needs subject to state and local cooperation in permitting land acquisition and construction. In many respects the proposed park-marina is in fact a completion of park and recreation plans prepared as part of the original inlet stabilization proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Those parts of the current proposals not specifically contained in the plans prepared by the Corps of Engineers are modifications or logical extensions of the ideas contained therein. Numerous conferences between representatives of the Port Authority and officials of DER resulted in two modifications of the original development proposal. On each of these modifications the Petitioner further reduced the dredged area containing the most productive habitat. The final proposal, for which the application for permit was denied and is the subject of this hearing, reduced the area of mangroves to be dredged to approximately five acres and contained a design which would provide 90 percent flushing of the marina area each one-half tide cycle. By this application Petitioner seeks to construct a marina to accommodate 40 commercial vessels and 136 recreational boat slips (Exhibit 15) with the commercial boats and recreational boats on separate sides of the upland area involved. Ecological Considerations Involved The entire site owned by Petitioner and comprising some 90 acres is an impounded area bounded on the east by the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW); on the south by a road providing access to Inlet Shores, a residential development erected on a former spoil disposal site immediately south of Petitioner's property; on the west by U.S. 1 and east of that by a power line road; and to the north by the access road to the power plant site. The power line road which runs north - south and is east of U.S. 1 is breached in several places and some tidal effects are present in the marshy area between the power line road and U.S. 1. Petitioner proposes to dredge 327,000 cubic yards of which 93.5 percent is seaward of mean high water. Part of this dredged material would be used to fill and develop upland portions of the marina site, and the remainder will be deposited on disposal sites generally west of the power line road. The dredging will be done by suction dredges, and necessary safeguards will be provided to prevent turbidity or water degradation during the dredging and filling operations. To provide 90 percent flushing of the marina basin on each one-half tide cycle the water portion of the marina will be dredged to ten feet below mean low water. Of the uplands and tidal areas proposed to be dredged 0.66 acre is populated by red mangroves, 4.28 acres are populated by black mangroves, and 7.52 acres are populated by Batis/Salicornia. The fill area comprises 1.02 acres of black mangroves and 9.43 acres of Batis/Salicornia. (Exhibit 42). These vegetations are approximate because each specie is not the sole occupant of the area but merely the dominant specie thereon. Plant species in this site also include Spartina and Barrichia. To provide the 90 percent flushing of this proposed marina Petitioner proposes to make the power plant and uplands marina site into an island connected to the mainland by a bridge. This will result in eliminating the existing power plant access road and replacing it with a rerouted road and the construction of a bridge spanning the channel connecting the commercial and recreational slips. Petitioner proposes to bulkhead around the upland area of the marina and to stabilize the south side of the marina channel with rip-rap. The project slope of this channel, which abuts the area of greatest ecological significance, is two to one. Connected to the proposed marina basin to the south of the project site is a shallow tidal creek two or three feet deep which extends southward through the impounded property and provides a flushing channel for the entire impounded area east of U.S. 1. This tidal creek is the most significant ecological feature of this tract and is little affected by the proposed dredging. The proximity of this site to Ponce de Leon Inlet gives it a coastal oceanic component imposed on what would otherwise be simply an estuarine system. This component is evident from the aquatic species inhabiting the site. This is significant in that there is an import of food from the ocean as well as an export of food from the estuary both adding to the food chain at this location. Tidal range in most of the area is approximately 2.5 feet. This tidal range decreases to less than one foot west of the power line road. The few breaks in the power line road allow this tidal component to enter this area, but the reduced tidal component is due to the barrier presented by the power line road. As a result of this lower tidal range the flora west of the power line road has a much smaller red to black mangrove ratio and is generally less productive. Furthermore, greater freeze damage has occurred west of power line road than east of it; however, there remains considerable evidence of extensive freeze damage to black mangroves in the western portion of the tract east of power line road. The last freeze causing extensive damage occurred in 1977. In connection with the proposed marina project Petitioner proposes to install culverts under the power line road to allow more tidal flushing west of power line road. This will increase the productivity and ecological value of this area and thereby increase the productivity of the impounded area comprising this estuarine system. No evidence was presented from which the quantum of this increase can be determined. The most ecologically significant vegetation in this site is located adjacent to the IC and immediately south of the proposed entrance channel to the marina. Earlier applications included dredging in this area. Although not the most significant in the tract, those areas now proposed to be dredged are ecologically productive and provide sanctuary and nursery habitat for aquatic species important to the fishing industry. In this connection, studies conducted by Respondent show this area to be much more productive than do the studies conducted by Petitioner. Respondent's studies were conducted for a one- year period; Petitioner's studies were completed in six months. Additionally, Respondent used a smaller seine opening, thereby capturing a large number of small animals that could have passed through Petitioner's seines. Accordingly, more credence is given to the Respondent's evaluation of the productivity of the impounded area than is given to Petitioner's evaluation of this productivity. Biomass studies were not conducted by any of the parties hereto. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation of the loss to the site by the proposed dredging cannot be made. Suffice it to say that this loss to the ecology caused by the dredging is significant, and this significance is demonstrated by the variety of species found in the area. Water Quality Degradation With respect to water quality degradation the parties have stipulated that there will be no short-term water quality degradation due to the construction of the proposed marina. If short-term degradation will not occur due to construction it would seem obvious that this construction could not cause long-term degradation of water quality. Water quality degradation resulting from operation of the proposed marina can only be addressed by considering measures proposed by Petitioner to insure the integrity of the water quality against those forces that would cause degradation. Those forces primarily attested to include oil and gas spills, waste from moored boats, discharge from upland areas, and paint flakes from boat bottoms. The assurances that water quality degradation will not result from marina operations is provided by the necessary equipment to clean up any accidental oil or gas spills; adequate waste disposal facilities at the marina plus regulations precluding people from living aboard boats that are moored at the marina; provisions for retention of water runoff on the upland area of the marina; and 90 percent flushing on each one-half tide cycle designed into the project. This constitutes reasonable assurances that long-term degradation of water quality will not occur. Respondent's witnesses' testimony that long-term water quality degradation could occur in the estuarine channels south of the marina basin is based on the assumption that oil spills and discharge from boats is inevitable, that some of these contaminants would be carried by incoming tides up the estuarine creeks, that all of these contaminants will not exit with the outgoing tides, and consequently these contaminants will build up to a point the quality of the water will be below minimum standards. No evidence to support these assumptions was presented. While it is possible or even probable that some contaminants will enter the shallow estuarine channels on incoming tides, most of these contaminants will also exit on outgoing tides. Some of the contaminants that do not exit the estuarine channels through the marina basin will exit these channels through the mangroves on outgoing tides directly to the ICW. Other contaminants will be assimilated and absorbed by the plant life in this system. Absent flagrant violations of all laws and regulations protecting water quality, the design and equipment proposed does provide reasonable assurances that water quality will not be degraded. Responsible enforcement of these various laws and regulations will preclude flagrant violations. Wildlife Interference Manatees have been sighted in the vicinity of the power plant site. It is also an accepted fact that manatees are known to congregate near warm water discharges from industrial plants. The power plant has its water intake on the north side of the plant and its discharge on the south side of the plant site into the proposed channel to be used by recreational boats entering the marina. From these facts Respondent concludes that the proposed marina would increase the frequency of harmful and fatal encounters between boats and manatees. Manatees have been sighted in many areas of the ICW between New Smyrna Beach and Daytona Beach with the only concentration reported at the warm water discharge from the sewage treatment plant at Edgewater (just south of New Smyrna Beach). No evidence was presented from which it can be concluded that greater danger to manatees will result if the marina is located as proposed rather than at another site. Boats generally enter marinas at reduced speeds due to the restricted area in which they must operate, the potential damage wakes could create for moored boats, and the increased danger of collision with boats or docks while operating in restricted waters. While operating at reduced speeds it is less likely that a boat will hit a manatee than when operating at high speed and, if such a collision does occur, the damage to the manatee or the boat will be much less. Furthermore, without a marina near the entrance to Ponce de Leon Inlet boats will travel a much greater distance in the ICW (and at higher speeds than when entering the marina) while making a voyage to the ocean and back. This increased travel in the ICW would increase the probability of collision with a manatee more than would a concentration of boats at the marine. Various birds, some of which are endangered species, have been sighted in the area herein involved. No specific damage to these birds was shown by the proposed marina other than the potential effect removal of the productive vegetation would have on these animals. No evidence was presented that any of these endangered species nest in this area or that removal of productive vegetation would have any specific adverse effect on these birds. Public Interest and Benefits As noted above, one of the factors used to arrive at a favorable cost to benefit ratio for the channel stabilization project at Ponce de Leon Inlet was the construction by local authorities of port facilities where fuel and docking spaces would be available to the public. Surveys of existing facilities were conducted in connection with the Marina Port Study 1976 (Exhibit 8). This revealed existing marinas were full and that a substantial waiting list for berths at these marinas existed. At this time the registered boats per 1,000 population in Volusia County was 43.2. (Exhibit 11). The significance of this figure is that it shows a substantial increase since 1967, and by 1980 the registered boats per 1,000 population was 57. At the same time the population of Volusia County was also increasing each year. Available slips for boats have not kept up with these increases; in fact, statistics presented show a further widening between the number of boats and the availability of berths in Volusia County. This is also reflected in the increase in number of boats on the waiting lists at those marinas polled. Facilities for commercial fishing vessels designed to work out of Ponce de Leon Inlet are minimal. While some docking facilities exist, these consist only of piers to which to moor. Fuel is available at only a few marinas, and then by tank truck. Inadequate facilities are available in this area for unloading the catches from commercial fishing vessels. Some 30 fishing vessels are owned by local residents. Thirteen of these owners submitted signed statements that they needed and would use the proposed facility for all the needs of their vessels. Marina owners and fish house operators testified in opposition to the proposed marina, contending that a marina constructed with tax revenues and low interest loans would offer unfair competition to them, that their facilities were adequate to meet the existing needs for marina and fishery services, that if the public facility was not built they would expand their facilities to meet the need, that there are insufficient fish to provide a source to support the additional boats to be attracted by the marina, and that no increase in the available fish to be taken off Ponce de Leon Inlet is a realistic concept. While there have been wide fluctuations in the annual fish harvest in this area, the average fish catch over the past ten years indicates that this harvest is now at or near its maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, a significantly increased harvest is not anticipated. This does not mean that if facilities for off-loading fish are provided by the proposed marina that there will not be a substantial increase in the quantity of fish landed here. If so, this would mean that these fish loadings would be taken from another port. While this would result in no economic increase for Florida (assuming the landings were taken from Cape Canaveral), it would represent an economic benefit for Volusia County. Considerable testimony was presented respecting the desirability and economic feasibility of governmental intrusion into private enterprise which will occur if the marina is constructed by the port authority as proposed. The answer to such a question is predominantly a political one which has been answered in favor of such intervention by the voters. The evidence that a business enterprise is more efficiently run by private interests than by a governmental entity was not disputed. However, there are occasions where the size of the project, the risks involved, or the necessity for the project is such that it will only be done if constructed by a governmental entity. Classic examples of such projects are airports, bridges, tunnels, low-cost housing projects, large reclamation projects, and port and harbor facilities. There are also many marinas that have been constructed and run by public bodies such as cities, port authorities or other political subdivisions. The facilities when completed are to be leased to private enterprise to operate these facilities. This will be more efficient than if the port authority operated the facility. The primary, if not sole, consideration used by Respondent to deny the permit was the destruction of productive habitat that will result from the construction of this marina. No evidence was presented that Respondent weighed the loss of habitat against the public need for the marina; or, if such was done, the factors used in determining the weight to be given to each. At the hearing evidence of need (and lack thereof) for a marina was presented as well as evidence bearing on the economic feasibility for this marina. After considering all of the testimony I find that the construction of the marina will result in the destruction of valuable habitat, that the slips to be provided at this marina are needed for both commercial fishing boats and recreational boats, and that the marina will provide economic benefits to Volusia County. Balancing the loss to be caused by the proposed dredging and filling against the gain to the people of Volusia County and the surrounding area by the construction and operation of the proposed marina, I find construction of the marina not to be contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Champagne Estates (petitioner or applicant), is a limited partnership that owns a tract of land identified as Lots 1-5, Block 88, PGI Section 9A in Punta Gorda, Florida. The property fronts on the south side of the Peace River, a Class III water body which lies within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, a water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Petitioner is in the process of constructing a thirty unit, two phase luxury condominium project on its property. As an added amenity for the unit owners, petitioner proposes to construct a multi-slip dock in a tear shaped basin that juts slightly inward from the Peace River. It is applicant's proposal to build a dock that has created this controversy. By application dated April 4, 1989, petitioner sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). If approved, the permit would authorize the construction of the dock. The application was received by DER's Fort Myers district office on April 14, 1989, and was given a staff review for sufficiency. After additional information was requested by DER and filed by the applicant, an on-site inspection was conducted by DER personnel on June 2, 1990. An inspection report was thereafter prepared on July 14, 1990, and was used in the formulation of the agency's preliminary decision. That decision, which was styled as a notice of permit denial, was issued on July 25, 1989, and cited several grounds for DER's preliminary action. They included (a) a fear that degradation of waters would occur, (b) applicant's alleged failure to show that the project was not contrary to the public interest in six respects, and (c) a concern that the project and its cumulative impacts would be contrary to the public interest. The agency's notice of permit denial prompted the applicant to initiate this proceeding. The application and project area Applicant initially sought authorization to build a two hundred sixty- three foot dock with six finger piers, a terminal platform and thirteen boat slips. The agency's intent to deny permit was based on that proposal. After the proposed agency action was issued, petitioner modified its application to downsize the dock to one hundred feet with only four finger piers and eight mooring slips. The structure will have a "T" configuration. Under the modified proposal, the finger piers will have a length of twenty feet while the mooring slips are twelve feet wide. Applicant advises that the boats which will use the facility will average between twenty and twenty-six feet in length with drafts of two to three feet. This size and draft is comparable to commercial fishing boats which now frequent the deep water basin to catch mullet. If the application is approved, applicant proposes to place rock riprap at the toe of the existing vertical concrete seawall and to plant red mangroves in the intertidal areas. It also proposes to prohibit "live aboards", fueling and maintenance at the facility. Despite the above modifications and restrictions, DER advised petitioner on October 5, 1989, that the application was still unacceptable for the same reasons as originally given. The parties have agreed that the modified application is the subject of this proceeding. The basin in which the construction will occur was excavated in the 1960's. A thirteen foot deep east-west channel runs parallel to the shore several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are existing seawalls on both the southern and western shorelines of the project area which form an "L" at the intersection. The basin is tear shaped with a width of approximately one hundred feet and commences some one hundred feet waterward of the shoreline. The "T" finger pier structures will be at the southerly edge of the existing basin thereby giving vessels access to the east-west channel. During low tide the bottom of the water body is exposed for more than one hundred feet seaward of petitioner's property. Thus, most, if not all, of the dock will be over exposed areas during low tide, and even during high tide the water in the surrounding basin area will be no more than a few feet deep. The proposed project has existing condominiums on both sides. Virtually all of the remaining lots on either side of the project stretching a mile or so in both directions are developed with single or multifamily units. If approved, petitioner's dock would be the only such dock in the immediate area on the south side of the river. Water quality concerns An applicant for a dredge and fill permit is obliged to provide "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will not be violated. Since the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an OFW, special water quality considerations come into play. More specifically, the project must maintain the ambient water quality standards of the OFW. This means that a permit cannot be issued for a project that will lower the ambient water quality, that is, the water quality existing one year prior to the date the body was designated an OFW, or the water quality existing one year prior to the project, whichever is better. One way in which ambient water quality can be degraded is by the resuspension of bottom solids caused by the churning of boat propellers. The likelihood of this condition occurring is made greater when insufficient water depths exist in combination with the existence of mucky, silty bottoms. The bottoms surrounding the proposed docking structure are nonvegetative and vary from hard sand in the shallow areas to a mucky silt layer in the deeper sections of the area. The accumulated sediment in the deeper section of the basin is on the order of twenty-four inches. While the hard sand bottom will readily settle out, the mucky bottom sediments will likely be churned by the boat activity in the absence of sufficient water depths. There is conflicting evidence regarding the depths of the water in the area of the basin where the proposed dock will be constructed. In support of its application, petitioner provided a chart indicating the topography of the sea bottoms at the proposed dock site. However, the geographic survey chart does not establish that sufficient water depth exists for the proposed dock. Rather, the more credible evidence establishes that the bottoms of the basin where the proposed dock will be built are often exposed and during low tides the sea bottoms are exposed up to approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty feet seaward of the seawall. Moreover, in the winter months, the westerly winds push the water out of the basin and cause the exposure of sea bottoms up to two hundred feet seaward of the seawall. When these shallow depths are coupled with the soupy texture of the bottom sediment, it is found that resuspension of the bottom sediment will occur as a result of boat activity at the proposed docking site. To the extent turbidity is now present in the basin due to the activities of the commercial fishermen, these turbidity levels will be exacerbated. If, as applicant suggests, the proposed facility will eliminate the commercial mullet fishing activities within the basin, there is no reasonable assurance that the new levels of turbidity will not exceed those now present. Therefore, it is found that applicant has not given reasonable assurance that the water quality standards will not be degraded. The agency's next concern involves its so-called "free-from" standard, which literally means that assurance must be given by the applicant that a water body will be "free from" various types of man-induced components (e. g., debris, oil, and scum) that float in such amounts as to form a nuisance. Thus, applicant was required to give reasonable assurance that the project would not cause an accumulation of debris and other items on the surface of the water in such amounts as to constitute a nuisance. The project site is "L" shaped, the "L" caused by the intersection of two seawalls on its western side. During the inspections of the project site by DER personnel, an accumulation of debris (grass clippings, styrofoam cups, coconuts, etc.) was observed in the corner of the "L". Indeed, applicant concedes that "some such debris is regularly present in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure" but contends that the docking facility will not cause significant additional floatsom or scum. However, it is found that due to the shape of the basin and its lack of sufficient water depth, the project will exacerbate the accumulation of debris so as to cause a nuisance. Finally, because of the shallow water in the basin, there exists the likelihood that dissolved oil or visible oil will form in the waters and affect its taste or give rise to an odor or otherwise affect the beneficial use of the waters. D. Public Interest Considerations In order for a permit to issue, and because the project is in an OFW, the applicant is obliged to show that the project "will be clearly in the public interest." The public interest test involves a consideration of seven statutory criteria. In this case, DER contends that six of the seven criteria enumerated in the law (s. 403.918(2)(a)1.-5. and 7., F.S.) have not been satisfied. The first criterion requires an inquiry as to whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of others. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed activity will take place in an OFW, a pristine water body. According to the agency, the maintenance of that water body "is in the welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida, not just the residents of Champagne Estates or the adjacent condominium owners." Because the operation of boats will cause a degradation of the waters in the basin area, this will have an adverse effect on the public welfare. While applicant proposes to offer mitigation in the form of riprap and new mangroves, the success rates for mitigation proposals such as this are less than fifty per cent and do not offer sufficient assurance to counter the adverse effect on the public welfare. The second criterion concerns whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Uncontradicted testimony established that stingray, bait fish, sheepshead, minnows, brown pelican, osprey, bottlenosed dolphin, and loggerhead turtles habitat the project area. In addition, the proposed dock has been designated as a critical habitat for the manatee. Due to the resuspension of bottom solids caused by boat traffic in the shallow waters, the wildlife and fish in the area of the proposed dock will be adversely impacted. This is because elevated levels of turbidity are detrimental to aquatic species that breath water, especially for those that filter feed and pass the fluid through their bodies. The next relevant criterion is whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (i. e., cause an area to shallow in). As to this criterion, applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the project will not affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling is accepted, and it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The fourth criterion in issue is whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. While the fishing or recreational values should not be adversely affected, the turbidity caused by the boats propellors will impact the marine productivity in an adverse manner. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. The next criterion concerns whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The evidence shows that the project will be of a permanent nature, that is, once constructed, the applicant does not plan on tearing down the structure. However, neither party offered evidence as to how this consideration comes into play in the context of the public interest test, and it is accordingly found that applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The last disputed criterion concerns the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. By virtue of the increased turbidity levels, it is found that the relative value and use of the area will be degraded. E. Cumulative Impacts In its proposed agency action, the agency contended that "the project and its cumulative impacts . . . also fail to be clearly in the public interest." This objection is grounded on the statutory requirement that the agency consider the "other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations." (s. 403.419(3), F.S.) According to an agency witness, applicant's project, if approved, would be the only docking facility on the south shoreline of the Peace River for some distance in either direction. Although DER does not have any pending applications for docks, and knows of none that will be filed, it "felt" there was a potential cumulative impact in that other condominium projects in the area would seek a docking permit once it became known that applicant had constructed such a facility. However, this "feeling" is insufficient to establish a finding that there is a potential adverse cumulative impact related to the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Champagne Estates for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 18-19. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Respondent: Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 3-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 9-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 15-41. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6-11. 42-53. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12-18. 54-56. Partially adopted in findings of fact 19-20. 57-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 63-64. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Punta Gorda, Florida 33949 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, The Mills Development Group of Florida, Inc., owns a condominium project now under construction at 1660 Gulf Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida. The project is on the south end of Sand Key, a thin finger-like strip of land which runs in a north-south direction between the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater Harbor. Gulf Boulevard is the principal road traversing the Key. The condominium project is situated on the west side of Gulf Boulevard and fronts the Gulf of Mexico. Petitioner proposes to construct a marina on the east side of Gulf Boulevard which fronts Clearwater Harbor. It will be used by the condominium residents and their guests. If the application is approved, Petitioner will construct a 683' x 6' boardwalk next to the seawall, which extends along the waterline on Clearwater Harbor. Extending outward from the boardwalk no more than 30 feet will be 20 catwalks providing slips for approximately 40 boats. Petitioner desires to build a boardwalk to have access to the deeper water which lies outward from the seawall and to avoid dredging activities. The boardwalk will also provide greater safety for the boaters. The proposed project lies within an area currently zoned by the City as District RM-28 (High Density Multi-Family Use District). This District was created to provide for high density apartment and condominium development use. Permitted uses and structures within the District include apartment houses, townhouse developments and accessory buildings, including recreational buildings and/or community meeting buildings. A number of special exceptions are authorized within a RM-28 District. These include, inter alia, a Type A Marina facility for pleasure craft docking. Accordingly, if the application is approved, the use will be consistent with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City expressed concern that persons using the facilities may wish to park on the grassy strip which lies between Gulf Boulevard and the proposed marina which in turn will impede the traffic flow on the thoroughfare. However, adequate parking for guests and residents will be located at the condominium across the street. Further, no material change in the amount of traffic is expected to be generated by the facility. Moreover, City approval is required if Petitioner desires to provide improved parking facilities on the grassy strip in the future. Intervenor/Respondent, isle of Sand Key Condominium Association, is a condominium association located to the east of Petitioner and approximately 150 feet across the channel at the proposed marina's northern end. The Association does not object to the project itself but is concerned only with the proposed length of the boardwalk. The Association has its own marina facilities which run perpendicular with the waterway and Sand Key. If approved, the proposed boardwalk would lie directly across the waterway from the Association's facilities leaving insufficient space in the channel for expansion of its marina. The Association also contends the proposed marina, if constructed in its present design, will violate an Easement Agreement entered into in November, 1975, by the prior owner of Petitioner's property and the Association. However, this concern is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed June 22, 1994, Petitioner requested a permit to dredge about 500 square feet of uplands for a boatslip and to maintenance dredge 1700-1900 square feet in an adjacent canal, removing 125 cubic yards of material waterward of mean high water. The Application describes the work as including a vertical concrete seawall running 92 feet inside the boatslip, a cat walk from the boatslip to the canal, and a roof over the boatslip. A drawing attached to the Application depicts the proposed boatslip at the east end of the Petitioner's lot and with rounded corners to facilitate flushing. By Notice of Permit Denial executed October 24, 1994, Respondent advised that the permit was denied. The Notice states that water quality in the surrounding canal system is generally poor with low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The shoreline vegetation is primarily mangroves, which are tall but not robust. The proposed dredge area consists of a healthy littoral shelf with live oysters and shells. Based on the foregoing site description, the Notice denies the permit because of impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife and marine productivity and a degradation of the current condition and relative value of the affected area. The Notice relates all of these factors to the loss of the mangroves and dredging of the adjacent canal bottom. The Notice adds that the project would have an adverse cumulative impact on water quality and public resources if similar projects were constructed. In the alternative, the Notice suggests that Petitioner eliminate the dredging into the uplands and canal and instead construct a boat shelter in the canal in an area of existing adequate water depth. By letter dated November 7, 1994, Petitioner challenged the denial. The letter states that Petitioner has maintained an environmentally productive shoreline consisting of mangroves, oysters, and rip rap, rather than concrete seawalls, as are found along the shoreline of most of his neighbors. The letter suggests that, if Petitioner followed Respondent's suggestion and built a slip in the canal, Petitioner would be permitted to do maintenance dredging in the artificial canal. The letter concludes that the maintenance dredging and shading of an over- the-water boathouse would have more impact on the environment than dredging uplands and a small access channel to the slip. Petitioner's residence is located in Aqualane Shores, which is an established residential subdivision located between Naples Bay on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Petitioner's lot is located about two-thirds of the distance down a long, relatively wide artificial canal known as Jamaica Channel. Jamaica Channel intersects Naples Bay to the east of Petitioner's property. Jamaica Channel is a Class III waterbody. Petitioner owns about 200 feet of shoreline at the corner of Jamaica Channel and a shorter, narrower canal. The entire area is heavily canalized and completely built-out with nearly exclusively single family residences. Most of the shoreline in the area is bulkheaded with concrete seawalls. Jamaica Channel was dredged in the early 1950s. Early riprap revetment crumbled into the water and in some areas became colonized by oysters, which supply food and filter impurities from water. Shoreline owners weary of repairing riprap installed vertical seawalls, thereby destroying the oyster beds and intertidal habitat. But much of the riprap adjacent to unbulkheaded shoreline eventually was stabilized by mangrove roots. The absence of concrete seawalls along Petitioner's shoreline has permitted a significant colony of oysters to populate the 25-foot littoral shelf running along Petitioner's shoreline. The oysters form a hemisphere, thickest at the middle of Petitioner's shoreline and narrowest at the east and west edges, narrowing to a width of as little as 6-10 feet. In recent years, Australian pines were removed from Petitioner's shoreline. As a result, mangrove seedlings have successfully occupied much of the shoreline. The proposed boatslip would be located at the east end of the shoreline where there is a natural gap in the mangroves. As a result, only three mangroves would have to be removed, and a relatively narrow band of oysters would be dredged and, as offered by Petitioner, relocated. The proposed dredging involves uplands and submerged bottom. As to the uplands, Petitioner intends to create a slope in the slip with the rear one to one and one-half feet shallower than the front, although this slope is not reflected on the Application. The purpose of the slope is to facilitate flushing. Petitioner evidently intends to dredge sufficient material to fill the rear of the slip with two feet of water at mean water and the front of the slip with three feet of water at mean water. The dredging in Jamaica Channel would involve an 18-20 foot wide path leading to the slip. Beyond the oysters, the bottom is fine sandy substrate with scattered rock. The relocation of oyster-covered rocks might be successful, if there are sufficient areas suitable for colonization that have not already been colonized. However, the dredged areas would not be recolonized due to their depths. Presently, the Application discloses level dredging down to an elevation of -5 NGVD. Petitioner's intent to slope the boatslip has been discussed above. Although Petitioner did not reveal a similar intent to slope the area dredged in Jamaica Channel, Petitioner's witness, Naples' Natural Resource Manager, testified that he would insist on similar sloping the entire length of the dredged area, so that the deepest area would be most waterward of the boatslip. If the dredged canal bottom were not sloped, Petitioner proposes removing about 4.25 feet of material about ten feet from shore, about 3.4 feet of material about 22 feet from shore, about 1.8 feet of material about 30 feet from shore, and about 0.5 feet of material about 40 feet from shore. Petitioner did reveal that the cross-section indicating a dredged depth of -5 feet applies only to the centerline of the dredge site, which would be tapered off to the east and west. The slope of the taper was not disclosed, but it is evident that the affected areas within 20 feet of the shoreline would be dredged at least two feet deeper and, in most areas, three feet deeper. The deepening of Jamaica Canal in the vicinity of the shoreline would not only eliminate existing oyster habitat, but would also eliminate habitat currently used by small fish. The deepening of Jamaica Channel in the vicinity of the shoreline would also impact water quality in the area. Water quality in Naples Bay and Jamaica Channel is poor and violates water quality standards for DO. Due to poor mixing of freshwater infusions and saltwater, DO levels deteriorate with depth. Where DO levels are probably adequate in the shallows around Petitioner's shoreline, the proposed dredging would likely result in depths at which violations could be expected to occur. Petitioner offers to install an aerator to introduce oxygen into the water. Ignoring the fact that the aerator was to operate only in the boatslip and not in the remainder of the dredged area, Petitioner did not show the effect on DO levels of this proposal. Even if the aerator had been shown to result in a net improvement in area DO levels, Petitioner also failed to show how the operation of the aerator would be guaranteed to extend indefinitely, or at least until the dredged areas were permitted to regain their pre-dredged depths. Petitioner argues that he could construct an over-the- water boathouse and maintenance dredge, and the resulting environmental impact would be greater. Several factors militate against this proposed alternative and thus preclude consideration of this alternative against the proposed project. Most significantly, the oysters have occupied the littoral shelf adjacent to Petitioner's shoreline for a period in excess of 20 years. There is considerable doubt as to whether Petitioner would be permitted to maintenance dredge under these and other circumstances. Respondent argues more persuasively the issue of cumulative impacts. There are about 350 residences in Aqualane Shores, of which only 150 have boatslips similar to that proposed by Petitioner. This raises the prospect of an additional 200 boatslips as a cumulative impact on water and biological resources.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application. ENTERED on May 26, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on May 26, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4-5 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder)-6: rejected as irrelevant. 7: rejected as recitation of evidence. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, irrelevant, and not findings of fact. 11-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-25: rejected as unnecessary. 26-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Miles L. Scofield Qualified Representative Turrell & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 33942 Christine C. Stretesky Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
