The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying Petitioner's application for conditional use approval should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 16, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for conditional use approval with the Respondent seeking permission to operate a personal watercraft rental business at a motel and restaurant located at 601 South Gulf View Boulevard on Clearwater Beach. According to the application, the Petitioner proposes to rent two "Hobie cat" catamaran sailboats, and four to ten "wave runners". The Petitioner proposes that the vessels would be escorted westward, north of and parallel to, the marked boat channel in Clearwater Pass, then northwestward to open waters where, according to Petitioner, a "safewatch and service unit of nonpropeller power" would "monitor" customer activities. The subject property is located between South Gulf View Boulevard and Clearwater Pass, west of the Clearwater Pass Bridge, and is comprised of two zoning districts, an upland portion that is zoned CR-28, or Resort Commercial "Twenty-eight", and a beach front portion that is zoned OS/R, or Open Space/Recreation. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach and Sand Key Islands, and is the only open access between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. A convenience store is located north of the property, and hotels are located east and west of the property. At the hearing before the Respondent's Planning and Zoning Board on March 13, 1990, the Planning and Development Department recommended denial of the application. In its written report to the Board, the planning staff based its recommendation upon the recommendations of the City's Harbormaster and Marine Advisory Board, which in turn were based upon concerns for safety due to the heavy boat traffic in the Clearwater Pass channel and at jetties along the southern end of Clearwater Beach and the northern end of Sand Key, all of which are located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon the testimony of Harbormaster Bill Held, it is found that state and federal approval of markers to mark off a private corridor in Clearwater Pass to accommodate Petitioner's proposed activities would be unlikely. During the hearing before the Board, the Board heard testimony from several persons in opposition to this application based upon concerns regarding the safety of swimmers due to careless operation of similar types of vessels, and strong currents in Clearwater Pass. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board discussed the application prior to voting. Members of the Board expressed concerns regarding public safety due to the dangerous condition of the area. The Board then voted unanimously to deny the application. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, resulting in this case. During this final hearing, Ronald Hollins, President of Gulf Fun, Inc., and agent for the Petitioner, testified that his proposed business would operate seven days a week, from sunrise to sunset, or approximately twelve hours daily. Petitioner testified that his personal watercraft rental vessels would be escorted during trips both from the subject property westward to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and also during return trips, and that a "safety service" boat would monitor the rental vessels while in operation, with the escort boat and the "safety service" boat being in radio contact with a base unit at the motel property. The rental vessels would be prohibited from crossing Clearwater Pass to the south side of the boat channel, and would be limited to an area of operation bounded on the south by Clearwater Pass and on the north by Pier 60 on Clearwater Beach. Petitioner proposes to employ only three or possibly four employees to operate the escort boat, the "safety service" boat, and the base location, to rent the personal watercraft vessels, show a video tape and give a safety booklet to customers, as well as to otherwise supervise the rental vessels during the approximately 84 hours per week that his business would be in operation. Petitoner has never operated a similar business. Based upon the testimony of Richard Howard, captain of a charter boat which regularly goes in and out of Clearwater Pass, it is found that personal watercraft vessels frequently present a hazard to navigation due to the manner in which they are customarily operated. Specifically, personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass engage in practices such as towing swimmers on inner tubes, purposely spraying water at boats, and jumping the wakes of boats in the Pass. The activities proposed by Petitioner would exacerbate the insufficient clearance between boats in the channel, boats anchored at the beach, and swimmers, and would, therefore, be inappropriate in Clearwater Pass. The currents in Clearwater Pass are found to be dangerous to boaters on a regular basis, based on the testimony of Arnold Abramson, bridge tender at the Clearwater Pass bridge and Harbormaster Bill Held. A significant number of personal watercraft operators do not demonstrate an understanding of the rules of navigation, or of the currents in the Pass. Based on the testimony of Marine Patrol Office Bill Farias, it is found that the lack of apparent common sense which is frequently demonstrated by personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass creates a dangerous condition for others. A common practice is to jump the wake of boats, which results in a loss of control in mid-air. The jetty at the western end of Clearwater Pass obscures vision, making it difficult for incoming boaters to see personal watercraft in the vicinity of the motel, and also making it difficult for personal watercraft operators to see incoming boats. There is another boat rental operation in the area of this subject property, located at the Hilton Hotel, but this existing operation predates the adoption of the Clearwater Land Development Code. The Clearwater Pass bridge had 12,000 drawbridge openings in the past year, and is one of the busiest in Florida.
Findings Of Fact By an application filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation on October 28, 1980, Pinellas County requested a dredge and fill permit to- construct a road and bridge crossing with an associated stormwater treatment system in connection with the improvement of County Road No. 1 across Curlew Creek and its wetland flood plain. The specific location of the project is in Section 12, Township 28 South, Range 15 East, in the City of Dunedin, Pinellas County, Florida. The project will involve the dredging of approximately 2,639 cubic yards of soil and include the placement of approximately 1,605 cubic yards of fill in the creek bottom. After an evaluation of the initial application the Department issued a letter of intent to deny the application on March 17, 1982, but the denial suggested several modifications to the project which were accepted by the County when it filed an amended application on September 30, 1932. It is on the basis of this amended application that the Department issued its notice of intent to grant on November 5, 1982. The County's initial application was complete before February I, 1982, the effective date of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, the Department's new stormwater discharge rules. The Petitioners jointly own real property on which they reside immediately to the west and downstream of Curlew Creek. Their property is riparian to the creek. Curlew Creek is a natural water body which runs from near U.S. Highway 19 in a westerly direction to the Gulf of Mexico in Dunedin, Florida. It is an unnavigable Class III water of the state. At times it carries a heavy stormwater runoff load and passes private residences such as Petitioners' which border the creek in many areas. During design storm events there has been flooding when the creek exceeds its historic flood plain. That flooding has come up into Petitioners' back yard. At the project site where the creek now runs under the existing span for County Road No. 1, the creek is approximately 25 feet wide and 2 feet deep. The creek bottom is flat and consists of deep fine sand. The banks are well vegetated with a dense scrub layer and many large trees. This vegetation provides good soil stabilization and prevents erosion of the creek banks. Curlew Creek is presently traversed by County Road No. 1 over a two- lane bridge. Because of increased traffic flow the County proposes adding another bridge span to carry two more lanes of traffic. When the additional two lanes are complete the center line of the entire bridge complex will be moved to the west of its present location and therefore be closer to Petitioners' residence. Petitioners primary concern in opposing the project is their belief that when completed the project will increase the potential of Curlew Creek to flood their land. Curlew Creek, which generally runs in an east-west direction, takes a sharp bend to the south on the downstream side of the existing bridge. It later resumes its course to the west toward St. Joseph's Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The creek's rapid change of direction underneath the bridge caused some confusion when the Department of Environmental Regulation issued its notice of intent dated November 5, 1982, to grant the requested dredge and fill permit. Condition number one for issuing the permit stated "The existing vegetation in an area more than 50 feet up and downstream from the bridge railing will not be disturbed except in the area of detention pond number 3 on the northeast side of the bridge." The author of the notice had intended that the condition mean vegetation would not be disturbed any further than 50 feet to the east or 50 feet to the west of the planned bridge railing, and not 50 feet upstream or downstream. The project plan is to remove a small sand spit which projects into the creek from the east bank immediately to the south of the bridge. Additional minor dredging is planned to smooth the water flow through the bridge area. Fill will be deposited to also provide a smoother water flow and consequently cut down on the eddies which presently arise under the bridge. The result of improved stream flow will be a reduction in the erosion of the creek banks and a lessening of turbidity in the creek water. Because the construction proposed will result in removal of certain vegetation along the creek bank which now provides soil stabilization, the County plans to use wet sand cement riprap or gabions for slope protection to stabilize the soil. Either method provides adequate erosion protection to ensure that the standards for Class III surface waters of the state will not be violated if the conditions of the proposed permit are followed. The expanded stormwater runoff facilities which are part of the project, as modified and subject to the condition in the Department's letter of intent to grant, will not have a significant impact on the water quality of Curlew Creek. These facilities provide adequate retention and settling capacity to ensure that the stormwater which eventually discharges into the creek will not cause pollution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of Pinellas County for a dredge and fill permit in order to construct the above described project in accordance with the conditions set out in the Department's letter of intent to grant dated November 5, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 24th day of October, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit and Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit to dredge sediments from specified areas in the Anclote River and surrounding bayous and lagoons should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Henry Ross resides at 1005 South Florida Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Florida. The City of Tarpon Springs (City of Tarpon Springs or City) is located on the Gulf of Mexico and is a coastal community with 56 miles of shoreline. The City of Tarpon Springs is known as the "sponge capital of the world" and has a sponging industry that dates back to the early 1900s. Other activities within the City are recreational boating and shrimp and other commercial fishing operations. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating activities in, on, or over surface waters and wetlands of the state pursuant to Chapter 373 and the rules promulgated thereunder. Pursuant to these responsibilities, the Department is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on all environmental resource permit or dredge and fill permit applications. The City's Application, filed with the Department in December 1998 and at issue in this proceeding, is an environmental resource permit application for authorization to use state-submerged lands. The Application initially sought authorization for new dredging and maintenance dredging of approximately 16,888 cubic yards of sediment from 11 locations in or adjacent to the Anclote River and surrounding bayous and lagoons. These areas are Outstanding Florida Waters and are identified as follows: Area 1, Tarpon Bayou; Area 2, Kreamer Bayou (Upper Tarpon Bayou); Area 3, Kreamer Bayou (West Chesapeake Point); Area 4, Kreamer (Bayshore Access); Area 5, Sunset Lagoon; Area 6, Anclote River; Area 7, South Tarpon to Spring Bayou; Area 8, Minetta Bayou; Area 9, Innes Bayou; Area 10, Spring Bayou; and Area 11, Lake Lutea. Consistent with its procedures, the Department sent copies of the Application to all the appropriate agencies for comments and then initiated its own review of the Application. Copies of the Application were sent to Protected Species Management, formerly within the Department, but currently under the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of Community Affairs; and State Lands, an office in the Department responsible for determining how much of the project occurs on state submerged lands. These various offices responded by sending comments to the Department. Based on the agency comments, as well as the Department staff person’s own knowledge and experience, the Department requested additional information from Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc. (B.B.L.), the engineering firm that prepared the application on behalf of the City. Also of importance to the Department was the issue of whether the project proposed in the Application was new dredging or maintenance dredging. In order to make this determination, the Department requested additional information from B.B.L. and/or the City about past dredging in the area. This determination was necessary in order to ensure that the statutory criteria for issuing the permit was satisfied. If the City's proposed project were "new" dredging, there was a likelihood of increased boating traffic in the area. On the other hand, if the proposed project were maintenance dredging, there would likely be no increased boating traffic. B.B.L. and/or the City responded to the Department's request, indicating that there was not adequate evidence or information of past dredging. In the absence of such evidence or information, the Department relied on other information to determine if the proposed project was maintenance dredging or new dredging. Specifically, the Department reviewed the Application and other information submitted by the City and/or B.B.L., and aerial photos of the area from 1989, provided by the Army Corp of Engineers. The Department staff also considered observations made and information obtained as a result of their field inspections of the areas. Based on its review of all pertinent information, the Department found that, with the exception of Area 6, the areas designated for the proposed dredging activities were existing navigational channels and were currently functioning as such. Ultimately, the Department determined that the proposed project was a maintenance dredging project and that the purpose of the project was to have the City maintain these existing navigational channels, regardless of their origin. During the Department's 1999 field inspection, the Department staff looked at the depth and width of all existing channels. With regard to depth, the Department believed that the City should not dredge any deeper than the present channels. The Department's decision regarding the width and length of the channels was based on the existing depth of the channels; existing habitat values; the Department's site inspection; current site conditions; the current bathymetry provided by the City, which the Department confirmed; and consideration of what is necessary for safe and common navigation. With respect to Area 6, the Department found that there had been some degree of boating traffic in that area in the past. However, the Department concluded, based on its field inspection, that area had not been maintained adequately to consider it a functioning navigational channel. Therefore, dredging in Area 6 would be considered new dredging. After the Department staff conducted the 1999 field inspection, the Department sent a letter to the City, which recommended how the project could be modified and how some of the potential impacts could be minimized or avoided. Some of the Department's concerns involved the proposed dredging depths and widths of the channels discussed in paragraph 12, and the sensitive habitats in the areas to be dredged. The City addressed the concerns raised by the Department in a June 1999 letter and, in September 1999, the City modified its Application to address those concerns. The City's Application, as modified, significantly changed the whole concept of the project. In light of the modifications, the project changed from one that would increase boating traffic to one that would maintain current boating traffic. Because the Department concluded that the maintenance dredging proposed in the modified Application would not increase the frequency or size of boats using the areas or channels, there will be no secondary impacts associated with new or increased boating traffic. In response to the Department's concerns and requests, the City modified its Application to reduce the initially proposed dredging depths of the channels. For example, in some instances, the City had initially proposed that the depth of the channels be five feet, but subsequently, reduced the depth to three feet. Based on these modifications related to depths and widths, at this time, the City will not dredge Areas 1, 7, 8, and 10 because no dredging is necessary to maintain current depths of the channels. However, if there is accretion or accumulation of sediment at some of those locations, the City will have the right under the permit proposed to be issued, to dredge those areas during the term of the permit. Any dredging, however, would have to be consistent with the terms of the permit. At this time, only three areas have evidence of accreted sediments (accumulated silt) and will be dredged: Area 5, Sunset Lagoon; Area 9, Innes Bayou; and Area 11, Lake Lutea. The City's Application, as modified, reduces or minimizes the impact on the environment in the areas to be dredged, as well as the impact on sea grasses and manatees in those areas. Moreover, the proposed maintenance dredging project will reduce the risks for manatees associated with shallow water by increasing the water depths to safer levels. The Save the Manatee Club (STMC) opposes the proposed dredging project. The STMC considers the proposed project as new dredging and its typical response to such projects is that new dredging may affect manatees or manatee habitats in a negative manner. In this case, the STMC recommended that the Department deny new dredging because the cumulative effect from increased boat traffic will be adverse to manatees and will have more than a negligible effect on the species. Notwithstanding its opposition to the project, the STMC recommended measures to protect manatees should the project be approved. Most of these measures were included in the conditions incorporated in the Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit. In reviewing the City's modified Application, the Department considered the cumulative impact of the proposed project. Contrary to the opinion of the STMC, the Department reasonably determined that because this proposed project involves maintenance of existing navigational channels, there is little potential for cumulative impacts to be an issue. The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission) is required to review and comment on all environmental resource applications relative to how the projects will impact manatees. After carefully reviewing and considering the modified Application, the Commission determined that the project, as proposed in the modified Application, varied significantly from the original Application and concluded that "the areas to be dredged are limited to those considered maintenance dredging," and that sea grasses have been avoided. The Commission also concluded that the conditions in the Notice of Intent to Issue regarding manatees' protection are adequate to offset the expected impacts to manatees from the proposed activity. The Notice of Intent to Issue includes the following conditions which minimize the impact to manatees: (1) a manatee observer must be designated and this observer must be in the water when the proposed work is being done; (2) if a manatee is sighted within 50 feet of the dredging activity, the activity will stop until the manatee is out of the area; (3) a log which details the sighting of manatees will be maintained; (4) work will not be performed after sunset because manatees cannot be seen during that time; (5) in-water work will be performed from March to November when manatees are less likely to be in the area; (6) when possible, work will be performed using a hydraulic dredge; and (7) boat traffic within the area will operate at a slow speed during the dredging activity. To ensure that conditions regarding sea grass had not changed since the Department's field inspection more than two years prior to this proceeding, Department staff conducted another field inspection of the area on April 11, 2003, four days prior to this hearing. That field inspection focused on Area 6 because it was conducive to some presence of sea grass. The findings of the April 11, 2003, field inspection were consistent with past reports and field inspections, which revealed that the quantity and density of sea grass were extremely low. During the April 1999 inspection, only a few sprigs of sea grass were observed within or adjacent to the potential dredge area. Due to the continued low density of sea grass, the planned dredging activities do not pose any direct negative impacts to the environmentally-protected aquatic vegetation, including sea grasses. The Department has reasonable assurances that the State water quality standards will not be violated by the proposed permit. Initially, the Department had to establish whether sediments at the proposed areas to be dredged contain pollutants. To make this determination, the Department first used a tiered approach established by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. This tiered approach requires looking at the location of the proposed areas to be dredged and then looking at the consistency of the sediments in that area. Depending on the result of these reviews, additional testing might be required. In this case, the three sites where the proposed dredging was to be done were identified and grain-size analyses of sediments from each of the areas were completed. These analyses provided information regarding the percentage of fine sediments in the areas proposed to be dredged. The higher the percentage of finer sediments, the greater the potential that the sediments contain pollutants. Based on the grain-size analyses, the sediments from the three areas proposed to be dredged--Area 5, Sunset Lagoon; Area 9, Innes Bayou; and Area 11, Lake Lutea--were coarse enough that they did not have much potential to contain pollutants. Therefore, additional testing of those sites was not necessary. The Department then considered the City's modified Application in terms of how the water quality and quantity will be maintained during the dredging process. For the dredging project, the City proposed using "closed bucket" clamshell dredging and utilizing double floating silt barriers as the containment method. Upon review, the Department authorized the "closed bucket" clamshell dredging for this project. This method is an intermediate method of protecting against pollutants that may be generated by the dredging project. Although hydraulic dredging is a cleaner process, the "closed bucket" clamshell method is more appropriate for this dredging project because it involves "spot" dredging to remove high spots and to maintain the currently existing navigational depths. Pursuant to conditions included in the Notice of Intent to Issue, the City must meet State water quality standards during the dredging events. If the State water quality standards are exceeded, the State has the power to enforce the water quality standards and to shut down any dredging operation that clearly exceeds that criteria. Mark Peterson is currently, and has been for the past two years, the environmental manager of the Department's Environmental Resource Permitting Section. Prior to this, Mr. Peterson was an environmental specialist with the Department. Mr. Peterson has a bachelor of science degree in biology from University of South Florida and a bachelor of science degree in horticulture from Florida Southern College. During his employment with the Department, Mr. Peterson has reviewed thousands of applications for environmental resources permits, exemptions, or authorizations to use State submerged lands. Mr. Peterson has made site visits to locations involved in instances where permits have been issued, with the exception of about two of the 500 approved applications, exemptions, or authorizations. About 50 of the projects were similar to the project at issue in this case. Mr. Peterson has been the Department's primary reviewer of the City's Application and modified Application for this proposed dredging project since its inception. Based upon Mr. Peterson's review of all relevant documents and analyses, the comments of appropriate agencies, and his field inspections of the site, the project, as proposed in the modified Application and the Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit, meets the public interest test set forth in Section 373.414(1). It is specifically found that: The activity will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or the property of others; The activity will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitat; The activity will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; The activity will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values on marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; The activity will be of a temporary nature because the channels tend to silt over time (over months, sometimes over many, many years; The activity will not adversely affect in any manner any significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061; and The activity will not affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas. In order to begin this dredging project, the City also needed to get approval from the United States Corps of Engineers and the Pinellas Water and Navigation Control Authority. These agencies have approved permitting the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Application of the City of Tarpon Springs, as amended, and issuing Environmental Resources Permit No. 52-01481903-001. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Henry Ross 1005 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire John G. Hubbard, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Orange County should be granted Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) No. 940519-1 for the Keene’s Park and Boat Ramp project (also referred to herein as the "R.D. Keene boat ramp") to be located on Lake Isleworth, part of the Butler Chain of Lakes, an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapter 40E- 4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District (the “District”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: THE PARTIES Petitioner Alicia O’Meara and Intervenor Regina Gibbs are the owners of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. Petitioner James E. Slater is the trustee and legal owner of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. Orange County is the owner of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. The Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, which prepared and submitted the ERP application, administers a budget in excess of $36 million and employs more than 425 persons. The District is a public corporation initially established under Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and currently operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The District is statutorily responsible for issuance of ERP permits. THE CURRENT SITUATION The Butler Chain of Lakes is a series of interconnected lakes in Orange County, covering in excess of 5,000 acres, and including Lake Down (the northernmost lake in the Butler Chain), Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Isleworth (also known as Lake Palmer), Lake Chase, Lake Blanche, Lake Tibet-Butler, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting canals. The Butler Chain drains south into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. The Butler Chain of Lakes is a Class III water body, and has been designated as an OFW since 1984. The Butler Chain of Lakes is surrounded by exclusive residential communities. There are approximately 1,400 docks on the Butler Chain of Lakes, providing private access to at least that many motorized watercraft. At all relevant times, there has been one boat ramp open to the general public on the Butler Chain. That public ramp is located in the southeastern portion of Lake Down, and is immediately adjacent to vehicular traffic on Conroy-Windermere Road. The ramp was deeded to Orange County by a private owner in the 1950s. The Lake Down ramp is an inclined cement or concrete slab that leads down into the shallow water and allows boat trailers to be backed to water’s edge and boats to be unloaded into Lake Down. The ramp has no dock, floating dock, buoys, or any other structure that would provide ease of access to handicapped or disabled persons. The ramp has no mooring facility in its vicinity. Should there be a need to moor a boat, the operator must do so in the shoreline vegetation. The Lake Down ramp has no adjacent parking lot. Orange County leases a vacant lot on the other side of Conroy-Windermere Road for boat ramp parking. This lot is approximately 1,900 feet from the boat ramp. Boaters must unload their boats at the ramp, moor the boats, drive to the lot to park their vehicles and trailers, then walk the 1,900 feet along Conroy-Windermere Road back to the place where they left their boats. The sidewalk along Conroy-Windermere Road does not extend the full 1,900 feet between the Lake Down ramp and the vacant lot. For about 300 feet of the trek to and from the ramp, people must walk on the roadside grass. Orange County leases the vacant lot from Windermere Property Holdings. The term of the lease expires on January 15, 2001. The lease also provides that either party may terminate it by providing 60 days written notice. Absent this lease, Orange County would have no provision for parking vehicles and boat trailers anywhere remotely near the Lake Down ramp. A further problem with the public ramp at Lake Down is that the only access channel from Lake Down to the remainder of the Butler Chain is through Wauseon Bay. The Wauseon Bay channel runs under a low vehicular overpass, which prevents access for all but the smallest boats from Lake Down to the other lakes in the chain when the water level is too high or too low. Thus, there are times when the general public has boating access only to Lake Down, the northernmost lake in the Butler Chain. There are other boat ramps on the Butler Chain, but none of these is available to the general public of Orange County. The Orlando Utility Company owns a private ramp on Lake Down. The Town of Windermere owns a public ramp, but allows its use only by residents of the Town of Windermere. The Sportsman’s Club owns a ramp on Lake Sheen, but access is limited to club members. There is a private ramp on Lake Tibet-Butler at the Bay Hill Lodge, with a fueling system, a marina, and a mooring facility. The Isleworth Country Club owns a recently permitted ramp on Lake Tibet-Butler. THE KEENE'S PARK AND BOAT RAMP SITE The limited public access to the Butler Chain led the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to pursue a policy of obtaining multiple access sites on the Butler Chain. The Keene's Park site, on approximately 52 acres of property owned by Orange County, was the Board’s first choice. The site of the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp is located within an abandoned citrus grove. While the site was being used as a citrus grove, a canal was constructed from Lake Isleworth to the adjacent uplands to provide a source of water for irrigation. The proposed ramp would be located within this previously excavated canal, which is deep enough to permit navigation out into the lake without running over shallow areas and with minimal potential for turbidity. Also on the site was a pump house for a diesel powered pump that was used for irrigating the citrus grove. A site inspection indicated that there was soil contamination caused by a fuel leak from the pump house. At the request of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), Orange County removed the pump house and performed environmental remediation on the site, including the removal, incineration and replacement of 21 tons of soil. DEP issued a Site Rehabilitation Completion Order on February 15, 1995, indicating that Orange County had fully remediated the on-site contamination. On May 19, 1994, Orange County submitted to the District a Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida. The Surface Water Application was numbered 940519-1, and the Dredge and Fill Application was numbered 940519-1-D. The District sent Requests for Additional Information as to both permits to Orange County on August 24, 1994, and Orange County submitted its responses to December 6, 1995. The District sent further Requests for Additional Information to Orange County as to both permits on January 12, 1996, and Orange County responded to both requests on November 6, 1996. On or about November 7, 1996, Orange County converted its Surface Water and Dredge and Fill Permit Applications to an ERP Application. The District issued an ERP Staff Review Summary on December 26, 1996; an Amended ERP Staff Review Summary on October 30, 1997; and a Second Amended ERP Staff Review Summary on February 13, 1998. In each of the Staff Review summaries, District staff recommended that the proposed permit be issued, subject to attached general and special conditions. THE PROPOSED BOAT RAMP The proposed R. D. Keene boat ramp consists of a 30-foot wide boat ramp, two 6-foot wide concrete walks, one floating dock designed to accommodate the handicapped or anyone else who has difficulty getting in or out of a boat, and a mooring system allowing boats to queue for use of the ramp. No boat slips or fueling facilities are proposed for the boat ramp. The installation of the boat ramp will utilize the Tedder Boat Ramp System, which minimizes the amount of dredging and filling required during construction by placing a factory precast concrete slab directly onto the lake bottom, eliminating the need for dewatering during installation. The ramp will be a double ramp, allowing two boats to load or unload simultaneously. The Tedder System is the latest technology in boat ramps. The ramp will be beneath the boats as they get on and off the trailer, minimizing turbidity even if boats “power load,” i.e., use their engines to push the boats on and off the trailer, as opposed to manually cranking the boat on or off the trailer. In any event, power loading will be prohibited at the R.D. Keene boat ramp. This proposal contrasts with the public ramp at Lake Down, where there is no prohibition on power loading and where the boats load and unload directly over the lake bottom, creating the potential for turbidity. During construction of the R.D. Keene ramp, hay bales and a silt fence will be used to protect against erosion, and two turbidity barriers will be used to isolate turbidity caused by the construction. The erosion control devices will be placed landward of an average 25-foot upland buffer zone. The queuing system will be approximately 230-feet long to prevent shoreline mooring and to provide temporary facilities for waiting boats if the ramp is in use. A post and cabling system will be run along the line of vegetation on the northeast side of the proposed ramp, allowing boats to moor in the vicinity of the ramp. Petitioners correctly state that this queuing system, located on the west side of the ramp, will not prevent shoreline mooring on the east side of the ramp. However, Orange County more credibly contends that there is no reason for boaters to moor in the vegetation on the east side. The queuing system will permit 20 to 30 boats conveniently to moor in the vicinity of the ramp. The queuing system is on the west side of the ramp, as is the parking lot. Dale Mudrak of Orange County credibly testified that the queuing system is sufficient for the anticipated use of the ramp, and there will be no need for boaters to moor in vegetation, as they are forced to do at the Lake Down ramp. Boaters have been forced to improvise at the Lake Down ramp due to the paucity of amenities. Petitioners are wrong to assume that boaters will continue these improvised behaviors at the R.D. Keene ramp, a facility that will provide such basics as a place to moor and to park boat trailers. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District’s Staff Review, absorbent booms will be installed on each side of the boat ramp to absorb oils, greases, and petroleum-based byproducts. Each section of the boom is 10 feet long, five inches in diameter, and, according to the manufacturer’s specification, capable of absorbing six to nine gallons of petroleum-based liquid. Between six and eight booms will be in place at any given time, enough to contain small oil spills at the boat ramp. Randall Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental opined that these booms will be inadequate because they will absorb only those pollutants, particularly hydrocarbons, which they come in contact with on the surface of the water. Mr. Armstrong testified that pollutants farther down in the water column will not be absorbed by the booms, rendering the booms ineffective. Mr. Armstrong’s opinion is not credited, because it assumes that Orange County must guarantee that the booms will absorb all water-borne pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed boat ramp. Having the booms in place will obviously be preferable to not having them in place. If the booms work well, as Orange County has credibly testified they will, it is unreasonable to criticize them because they will not work perfectly. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District's Staff Review, an oil-spill emergency response kit will be maintained at the ramp site at all times. Park staff will be trained in proper use of the emergency kit. Contact numbers will be posted at the site for use by the public, should a spill occur when park personnel are not present. In case of a fuel or oil spill, park personnel are required to take immediate measures to notify the appropriate emergency response agency. The construction of the proposed boat ramp utilizes suitable technology for all stationary installations, including those created for drainage, flood control, or by dredging or filling. The parties agree that the storm water management system and the surface water management system for the project meet all applicable criteria for issuance of the ERP, and that the facility will have no adverse wetland impact. Deed restrictions between Orange County and the predecessor title holder of the property limit the number of boat trailer parking spaces to fifty (50) or fewer at all times for the entire 52-acre site. A total of 50 parking spaces are proposed for construction: 47 regular vehicle trailer spaces, two (2) handicapped spaces, and one space for staff. Posts with cabling will be constructed along the entrance roadway and parking areas to prevent parking of boat trailers in undesignated areas. Signage will also indicate that parking along the driveway and main access road is prohibited. Access to the proposed ramp will be limited to daylight hours. The R.D. Keene Park will be locked at night to prevent public access. Petitioners assert that Orange County has not and cannot guarantee that only 49 boats will enter Lake Isleworth from the ramp at any one time, citing the fact that Orange County does not control access to the ramp by way of Chase Road, which is the access road to the R.D. Keene Park. Petitioners speculate that boaters may park their trailers along Chase Road, causing an excess of 49 users of the ramp at a given time. Absent more than speculation, Petitioners’ assertions cannot be credited nor can Orange County be held at fault for failure to anticipate these remote possibilities. Petitioners are once more observing the improvised behaviors at the Lake Down ramp and assuming they will carry over to the R.D. Keene ramp, even though the latter will have adequate parking adjacent to the ramp. Petitioners also cite the fact that Orange County’s construction plans do not include fencing on the south side of the park to prevent pedestrian access from the Keene’s Pointe subdivision. Petitioners speculate that boaters will put their boats in at the R.D. Keene ramp, park their trailers somewhere in that subdivision, then walk back to the ramp to take their boats out on the lake. Again, Petitioners contend this operates to negate Orange County’s assurances there will be only 49 users of the ramp at a given time. Again, these speculations cannot be credited as facts nor can Orange County be found at fault for failure to anticipate these remote possibilities. Petitioners provided no evidence that this ramp will be so overwhelmed with boaters that the overflow will pour out into the nearby neighborhoods. The boat ramp will be staffed by personnel from the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department. Orange County staff will not be present at all times the boat ramp is open. Orange County has made no commitment to have staff present during all hours of weekend operation. Christi Flood, Manager of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, testified that full-time staff will be present on predictably busy weekends. Petitioners contend that the lack of staff present at the ramp during all hours of operation means that Orange County cannot prevent: power loading or unloading; draining, cleaning or washing; discharging of bilge pumps or popping of drain plugs into the water; shoreline mooring or disturbance of shoreline vegetation; fueling at the ramp; watercraft over 27 feet; boats with antifouling paint; or use of the facility by watercraft without permits. However, Petitioners failed to offer hard evidence that the patrols proposed by Orange County will not reasonably enforce the park rules, or support for their assumption that users of the boat ramp will ignore the park rules when staff is absent. Orange County could not guarantee perfect compliance with every rule, even with the full-time staff that Petitioners seek. Orange County staff will be empowered to enforce the park rules with citations, which would include fines or revocation of the privilege to use the boat ramp. Parking restrictions will be enforced by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The Butler Chain of Lakes is patrolled by other agencies, including the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Orange County’s Environmental Protection Department, the Windermere Navigational Board, and the Marine Patrol. The special conditions of the District’s Staff Review require Orange County to implement an Operational Plan, the terms of which have been specifically set forth by Orange County in its submissions to the District. To use the ramp, a boater must fill out a Day Use Permit stating that the boater will abide by the park’s rules, and pay a fee. All conditions of the Operational Plan are included in the Day Use Permit. Permitting will be done on the honor system when Orange County staff persons are not actually present. Blank permit forms will be left at the ramp. Boaters will fill out the forms, place their money in an envelope to be deposited in a secure tube provided at the site, then display the permits on their car dashboards while parked at the ramp. Ms. Flood testified that no more than 49 permits will be issued at a given time. A trailer carrying multiple watercraft will be required to obtain a permit for each watercraft. Ms. Flood conceded that more than 49 permits could be issued over the course of a day, as boats come and go from the ramp. As stated in the Operational Plan and the Day Use Permit, the following rules will apply to all watercraft launching at proposed boat ramp: No power loading or unloading. No draining, cleaning or washing at the ramp. No discharging of bilge pumps and opping of drain plugs at the ramp or in the water. No anchoring or parking along shoreline and no disturbance of shoreline vegetation. Use designated queuing system while waiting for ramp availability. No littering. All "No wake" areas must be obeyed (including the No Wake Zone within 100 feet of shoreline, as mandated by Orange County ordinance). No fueling allowed at the ramp for any watercraft. No watercraft over 27 feet will be permitted. No boats with antifouling paint will be permitted. No overnight mooring. The R.D. Keene Park will be closed if the water level falls below 97-feet. Dale Mudrak, the Program Development Supervisor in the Planning and Design section of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, testified that 97 feet was chosen to ensure that boats would not use the ramp when the water is too low. Mr. Mudrak stated that when the water elevation is at 97 feet, there is 5-feet of water at the ramp, but only 3-feet of water in the shallow canals leaving Lake Isleworth. He testified that the Windermere Navigational Board recommended closing the ramp when the level reaches 96 feet, but that Orange County conservatively decided to add 1-foot to the recommendation. WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The project is expected to result in 0.07 acres of secondary wetland impacts (removal of littoral zone vegetation) above that required for construction. A total of 0.14 acres of wetland impacts will occur from direct construction and secondary wetland impacts. Mitigation for the 0.14 acres of wetland impact includes 0.56 acres of wetland creation. The wetland creation areas are divided into three separate zones (A, B, and D). Both forested and herbaceous species will be planted in each area. The forested species include cypress, red maple, sweet bay, water oak, swamp bay and dahoom. The herbaceous species include soft rush, maidencane, cordgrass, sawgrass, duck-potato, pickerel-weed, and buttonbush. Approximately 1.61 acres of wetland preservation is also provided as mitigation. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District's Staff Review, Orange County will provide a conservation easement. The conservation easement will be placed over the preserved wetlands, mitigation area, and upland buffer zones and deeded to the District. A total of 2.90 acres will be placed under this conservation easement. Elimination and reduction of wetland impacts has been demonstrated. Adverse impacts to aquatic dependent species from wetland impacts are not expected, because the values and functions provided by the proposed mitigation outweigh the wetland loss. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY Orange County has an extensive water quality monitoring program, and has accumulated historic water quality data for over thirty years, including a broad range of physical, chemical and biological parameters, for the Butler Chain of Lakes. In its application, Orange County provided site- specific water quality, sediment, and macroinvertebrate samples. The water quality parameters sampled include four categories: physical properties, inorganics, organics, and microbiology. Orange County also provided historic water quality data for a period of ten years (1984-1994) for Lake Isleworth, Lake Louise (the immediate upstream waterbody), and Lake Tibet-Butler (the immediate downstream waterbody). This data included the year Lake Isleworth was designated as an OFW in 1984 and the year prior to submission of the ERP application. Linda Jennings, the Laboratory Supervisor for the Orange County EPD, testified that the historical data demonstrated that the water quality in the Butler Chain of Lakes has been excellent since at least 1983 and remains so today, even with development and boating steadily increasing over that period. The historical data show some small variances attributable to seasonal and cyclical fluctuations, but no long- term deterioration of water quality in the Butler Chain, despite the heavy recreational use of those lakes during the period in question. The historical water quality data provided by Orange County in this case is far better than is usually submitted to an agency during the application process, even for those projects located in OFWs. This historical data allowed the District to make a more informed decision than usual regarding the long term status of the water quality of the Butler Chain. Orange County provided water quality data for those parameters showing the general water quality, and for those parameters specifically related to boat ramp activity, such as Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, discussed in more detail below. The historic water quality data demonstrates there have been no major changes in water quality over the ten-year period of record and that, if there is any trend at all, it is a trend toward improved water quality. The water quality of Lake Isleworth and the Butler Chain of Lakes is excellent and has maintained its superior quality since 1983. ORANGE COUNTY’S PAH DATA Orange County provided water quality data from October 1997 and January 1998 for Lake Sheen, Lake Isleworth and Lake Down. Orange County collected and analyzed numerous water and sediment samples for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), also called Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, which are compounds found in gasoline and other petroleum products. The presence of PAHs in the water indicates the presence of petroleum products in the water. Starting on October 14, 1997 and continuing through October 20, 1997, Orange County EPD took 84 water samples on seven consecutive days at twelve stations: at the ramp, east edge, and center of Lake Down; at the west edge, center, and east edge of Lake Isleworth; at the ramp, center, and west edge of Lake Sheen; and at the ramp, center, and east edge of Lake Conway, a heavily used Orange County lake outside of the Butler Chain. Orange County EPD also took 28 sediment samples, representing a total of 84 sediment samples, at each of the twelve stations for seven consecutive days, taking composites of the three sites in each of the four lakes: Lake Down, Lake Isleworth, Lake Sheen and Lake Conway. An independent laboratory, Bottorf Associates, Inc., analyzed each of the 84 water samples and the 28 composite sediment samples for 16 different PAH parameters, including naphthalene. This represents a total of 112 samples and a total of 1,792 different PAH tests. Environmental testing laboratories are required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to file a comprehensive quality assurance plan (“QAP”) for all field and lab procedures they perform. Among the data included in the filed QAP is a statement of the method detection limit ("MDL"), the lowest level of a particular compound that the laboratory can report on a continuing basis using a particular form of test and a particular piece of equipment, with 99 percent confidence that the value is above zero. The MDL is arrived at by assessing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) testing method being used, in conjunction with the particular instrument and the abilities of the analyst, with the goal of stating an MDL that can be achieved on a daily basis in the ordinary operations of the laboratory. The MDL can also be described as that level below which the laboratory cannot be certain whether it is reporting accurate values or whether it is reporting background noise in the sample. The laboratory results reported by Bottorf Associates, using EPA Test Method 610 for PAHs, indicated that every reading for every parameter tested was below the MDL for the following array of PAHs (MDLs are stated in micrograms/liter): Acenaphthene 1.4 Acenaphylene 3.4 Anthracene 4.2 Benzo(a)anthracene 4.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.9 Benzo(ghi)prylene 10.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.0 Chrysene 4.0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.8 Fluoranthene 1.7 Fluorene 3.0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.5 Naphthalene 1.4 Phenanthrene 1.2 Pyrene 2.4 Orange County’s test results indicated that, as a practical matter, there were no PAHs at any of these locations on the days of testing. In January 1998, Orange County EPD took additional water samples at the following 10 sites: the ramp, east edge, and center of Lake Down; the west edge, center, east edge, and future ramp site on Lake Isleworth; and the ramp, center, and west edge of Lake Sheen. The 10 water samples were tested for 13 different PAH constituents, including naphthalene. All of the constituents tested in January 1998, were below the MDL, confirming the testing done in October 1997. Orange County EPD’s result sheets from the January 1998, sampling included qualifier identifier codes to show that the data was being reported at a level below the MDL. Essentially, the codes indicate that no PAHs could be detected even at a level of one-half the MDL on file with DEP. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments at Lake Down, which has had a public boat ramp for decades, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments from Lake Sheen, which has a boat ramp for a membership club with a fueling facility and dock, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments from Lake Conway, which has a heavily used boat ramp, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. PETITIONERS’ PAH DATA Petitioners introduced a study performed by Mote Marine, a state certified research laboratory, assessing the levels of hydrocarbon contamination associated with boat launching and loading activities at the Lake Down and Lake Sheen boat ramps. Specifically, Mote Marine sampled for naphthalene, one of the PAHs that is an indicator of petroleum discharges into the water body. Mote Marine collected water samples at the boat ramp, the opposite shoreline, and the center of Lake Down and Lake Sheen. Mote Marine also collected water samples at the site of the proposed boat ramp and near a canal on Lake Isleworth. All of these samples were taken during Labor Day weekend, between August 31 and September 4, 1995. Mote Marine’s QAP indicates that its MDL for naphthalene under either EPA Method 625 for Base/Neutrals and Acids or EPA Method 610 is two micrograms per liter. Mote Marine employed EPA Method 625. Orange County used EPA Method 610. The values for naphthalene reported by Mote Marine were expressed not in terms of micrograms, but in terms of nanograms. A nanogram is one-thousandth of a microgram. Of the 72 individual water samples collected by Mote Marine at Lake Down, Lake Sheen, and Lake Isleworth over the 1995 Labor Day weekend, only one registered a naphthalene concentration above the two micrograms per liter MDL in Mote Marine’s QAP. The majority of the measurements were reported as less than 10 nanograms per liter. Dr. Richard Pierce, the Director of Research at Mote Marine, testified that the QAP on file at DEP is a broad based plan encompassing all the various analyses performed by the laboratory, in effect a “worst case scenario” setting a high MDL that is easy to meet in all cases. Dr. Pierce also testified that DEP and the U.S. EPA allow a laboratory to vary from its filed MDL on specific projects, and that his laboratory was able to establish an MDL of six nanograms per liter for this particular project. Dr. Pierce testified that three major factors are involved in establishing a project specific MDL. The first factor is how “clean” the sample is, i.e., how many interfering compounds are present that may elicit a response from the detector being used. The second factor is the quality of the instrumentation, and the third is the skill of the analytical chemist performing the analysis. Dr. Pierce’s factors coincide with the factors listed by Ms. Jennings of Orange County as to the considerations involved in establishing a comprehensive MDL. Mote Marine did not file a Quality Assurance Project Plan for this project. Dr. Pierce testified that such a filing was not required in order to apply a lower MDL for this project. Orange County contended that such a filing was necessary, but offered no specific reference to a rule that would have required Mote Marine to file a Quality Assurance Project Plan under these circumstances. The undersigned could discover no DEP rule that unequivocally would require the filing of a Quality Assurance Project Plan for the activities conducted by Mote Marine. Thus, Dr. Pierce’s expertise as Director of Research is credited and it is accepted that Mote Marine could establish a project specific MDL in this instance, and properly did so. A chart in the Mote Marine report, purporting to show the average naphthalene concentrations in the subsurface water as determined by Mote Marine’s sampling, contained several inaccuracies. The chart stated that the measurements were being reported in terms of micrograms, when in fact the numbers represented nanograms. In two places, the average concentrations were miscalculated, either because the correct factors were not included or due to simple mathematical error. The Mote Marine report also provided no information on the actual locations of the testing sites in terms of latitude and longitude, thus making it difficult if not impossible to check or repeat the sampling. The problems with methodology and with simple calculations make it difficult confidently to rely on the Mote Marine report as regards naphthalene. However, even if the Mote Marine report had been impeccably accomplished, its results would not establish a definite correlation between naphthalene contamination and boating activities. Petitioners assume that the concentrations of naphthalene that Mote Marine found in the vicinity of the Lake Down and Lake Sheen boat ramps are attributable to boating activity, ignoring the fact that neither of these boat ramps has a storm water management system. Both the Lake Down and Lake Sheen ramps directly adjoin roads, and have no buffering system whatever for storm water runoff from those roads. There was rain on the Butler Chain during the Labor Day weekend of 1995, when Mote Marine took its samples. In fact, a tropical depression had only recently passed through the Orlando area. Dr. Pierce could not determine the relative input of contaminants from automobiles and from boats. Dr. Pierce had no opinion on whether the amount of naphthalene found by his laboratory is environmentally or ecologically significant. Dr. Pierce had no opinion as to whether hydrocarbon contamination is degrading the water quality of Lake Down. Randall Armstrong, a consultant with Phoenix Environmental, opined that the reported naphthalene levels would degrade the water quality, but admitted that he was not an expert in chemistry and was ignorant of Mote’s methodology. Even accepting all of Petitioners' assertions as accurate, it cannot be found that the proposed R.D. Keene ramp and its surface water management system would lead to the introduction of petroleum products into the water column in amounts sufficient to degrade the water quality. Dr. Douglas Durbin, a Senior Ecologist with Biological Research Associates and an expert in lake ecology, defined degradation of water quality as a negative and permanent change in the ecological or recreational status of a water body. Dr. Durbin testified that, even if the Mote Marine data were accurate and reliable, those levels of naphthalene were lower by at least two orders of magnitude than levels that could potentially affect even the most sensitive organisms, as those affective levels have been established by the United States EPA. This is not necessarily the standard for determining degradation, but is indicative that the levels of naphthalene under discussion are infinitesimal. Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental contended that the impact to water quality by an activity need not be permanent in nature or even ecologically significant in order to violate the water quality standards of the District. Mr. Armstrong's rationale is that any "measurable" lowering of the water quality of the OFW violates the rules, even if that measurement must be accomplished in nanograms and cannot be shown to have any effect whatever on any of the biota of the water system. This rationale would essentially shut down all new activities on OFWs, and is at odds not only with the District's interpretation but with the views expressed by Mr. Armstrong himself on other projects. Dr. Durbin's opinion regarding the nature of degradation is credited over that of Mr. Armstrong. WATER QUALITY MODELING AND IMPACT OF THE PROJECT After establishing the ambient water quality, Orange County performed water quality modeling to determine if the ambient water quality would be lowered by the construction and operation of the boat ramp. The number of boat ramp users will vary based on various factors including temperature and day of the week. The ramp is sized for 144 launch events per day, meaning that a maximum of 72 boats could use the ramp on a given day. Mr. Mudrak testified that the ramp was sized so that parking, not the size of the ramp, will be the limiting factor in ramp usage. The ramp will have 50 parking spaces, one of which will be reserved for Orange County staff use and two of which will be designated for handicapped use. Robert Robbins, the District’s permitting expert, testified that the District’s analysis generally concerns a determination of the amount or rate of input of pollutants that a lake can assimilate without exceeding its assimilation threshold, i.e., lowering the ambient water quality. Mr. Robbins further testified that this determination was unnecessary here because the District found a negative answer to a threshold question: would a boat ramp and 50 boat parking area under any circumstances exceed the assimilation threshold? As part of a grant project that involved a water quality model and water management study, Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., collected data on the geometric characteristics of the lakes, the topographic and ecological characteristics of the basins, and the existing land uses to develop a hydrodynamic and water quality model of the Butler Chain of Lakes, hereafter referred to as the “BCL model.” The BCL model provided a conservative hydrodynamic analysis of the rate of input and dilution of pollutants, and indicated that there is no potential for the accumulation of pollutants in the Butler Chain of Lakes as a result of the project. Parsons Engineering considered the chemical and physical properties of the gasoline constituents and ran the BCL model using the pertinent chemical and physical parameters. The BCL model took into consideration volatilization and adsorption of hydrocarbons from the water. In an effort to reach a conservative result, the BCL model did not include the loss of gasoline constituents through biodegradation or photolysis, processes in which the hydrocarbons dissipate over a longer period of time. The BCL model predicted that no accumulation of gasoline constituents, including naphthalene, would occur in Lake Isleworth at a level equivalent to the expected daily usage of the proposed boat ramp, an average of 25 boats per day. The BCL model predicted that no accumulation of gasoline constituents, including naphthalene, would occur at a constant level of 77 boats using the proposed ramp every day, triple the expected daily usage and five boats more than the capacity of the proposed ramp. At a level equivalent to the expected daily usage, the BCL model predicted that the daily concentration of the PAHs benzene, toluene and naphthalene, would be below the laboratory detection limits. At a level that is triple the expected daily usage, the BCL model predicted that the daily concentration of the PAHs benzene, toluene and naphthalene would be below the laboratory detection limits. In summary, the BCL model predicts that even if the proposed ramp had a capacity of 77 boats per day rather than 72, and if 77 boats were served by the ramp every day of the year, rather than the actual anticipated average of 25 boats, there would be no degradation of water quality caused by introduction of hydrocarbons into the water of Lake Isleworth. Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a consultant engineer with Phoenix Environmental, also performed a hydrographic study to determine flushing patterns for Lake Isleworth in the vicinity of the proposed boat ramp. Dr. Echternacht testified that, without good flushing, continuous loads of pollutants will build in the water body, lowering water quality. “Flushing” is the time required to reduce the concentration of a “conservative” pollutant to ten percent of its original concentration. A conservative pollutant is one that does not erode, decay, or go through any biological update process. Dr. Echternacht testified that standard engineering practice in Florida is to assume that a flushing time in excess of four days will result in the accumulation of materials. Section 4.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review states that a four day flushing time is “desirable” for docking facilities. The project at issue is not a "docking facility" as that term is used in Section 4.2.4.3, hence there is no requirement or preference in law for a four-day flushing period. Dr. Echternacht’s study concluded that the minimum flushing time for the proposed boat ramp on Lake Isleworth will be 26 days. Dr. Echternacht’s study was limited to a strict one- dimensional appraisal of the physics of Lake Isleworth. Dr. Echternacht professed no expertise in chemistry, and he did not take into account the chemical properties of the pollutants at issue in this proceeding. He assumed that the pollutants would be “conservative,” when in fact petroleum constituents are volatile, and will disappear through volatilization, adsorption, biodegradation, and photolysis. Petitioners failed to establish any connection between Dr. Echternacht’s flushing analysis and the Mote Marine study on PAHs. Dr. Echternacht’s analysis is thus of little practical significance, because no evidence was adduced to show that a 26-day flushing time will result in the accumulation of PAHs and a degradation of water quality, when the PAHs are introduced in the nanogram amounts reported by Mote Marine. The Lake Down ramp has been heavily used by the public for many years, directly adjacent to a reasonably busy road and without any surface water management system, and still the only traces of naphthalene found by any laboratory were measured in nanograms, with no indication that these pollutants will accumulate when introduced in those trace amounts. In summary, the evidence regarding naphthalene concentrations is insufficient to establish that the proposed R.D. Keene ramp will have any adverse effect on the water quality of Lake Isleworth specifically or the Butler Chain generally as regards petroleum contamination. TURBIDITY At the same time they collected water samples regarding PAHs, both Orange County and Petitioners collected turbidity samples. Turbidity is a means of quantifying particular matter in water that absorbs light or otherwise keeps light from passing through the water. It may have natural causes, such as phytoplankton cells or erosion after a storm, or it may be caused by human activity in or adjacent to water bodies. Turbidity is measured in nephelmetric turbidity units, or “NTUs.” The historical water quality data shows a turbidity range of 0.3 NTUs to 2.2 NTUs for Lake Isleworth. These are low levels of turbidity, indicating very clear water in Lake Isleworth. Dr. Durbin testified that natural turbidities can run into the hundreds or even thousands of NTUs, depending on what is happening in the watershed, and that turbidity is not considered a problem until it reaches levels at which there is some effect on the organisms that live in the system. Both Dr. Durbin and Ms. Jennings testified that, in assessing measurements in NTUs, the numbers to the right of the decimal are unreliable; in other words, a measurement of 2.0 NTUs should be considered as virtually identical to a measurement of 2.40 or 2.80 NTUs. In the period from October 14 through October 20, 1997, Orange County took turbidity samples from Lake Down (east edge, center, and boat ramp area), Lake Isleworth (west edge, east edge, and center), Lake Sheen (west edge, center, and boat ramp area), and Lake Conway (east edge, center, and boat ramp area). Seven samples were taken at each location, making a total of 84 turbidity samples. The highest individual measurement was 5.40 NTUs, measured at the Lake Down boat ramp on October 15. This is itself a low level. Dr. Durbin testified that no concerns are raised until turbidity measurements reach 30 NTUs, and that short-term measurements in the hundreds or even thousands of NTUs may cause no harm to the biota of a system. Further, in fewer than 24 hours this measurement of 5.40 NTUs had settled out to a measurement of 1.60 NTUs. None of the other 83 measurements even reached the level of 2.0 NTUs, all within the historical background turbidity range for the Butler Chain of Lakes. No increase in turbidity can be traced to boating activity in the October 1997 sampling. The samplers’ field notes indicate whether and how much boating activity was occurring as the samples were being taken, and no causal connection can be drawn between boating activity and turbidity. Orange County EPD took further turbidity samples on January 23, 1998. These samples were taken in the Wauseon Bay canal, and were an effort by Orange County to deliberately follow in the wake of boats and obtain the maximum possible amount of turbidity. None of the 8 measurements taken in this sampling showed turbidity in excess of the background turbidity, considering Ms. Jennings undisputed testimony that NTUs may be reliably measured only in whole numbers. The measurements taken in the wake of boats ranged from 1.18 NTUs to 1.71 NTUs, as compared with background measurements ranging from 1.05 NTUs to 1.13 NTUs. Phoenix Environmental, in conjunction with Mote Marine, took turbidity samples at the Lake Down boat ramp during the Labor Day weekend of 1995. These samples indicated background turbidity from 1.2 NTUs to 2.5 NTUs, and showed turbidity spiking to levels as high as 29.0 NTUs during extensive launching activity, particularly when the boat operators used the “power loading” technique discussed above. “Power loading” will be prohibited at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. Further, the Tedder system would minimize turbidity even if boat operators violated the prohibition, because it would eliminate prop dredging directly on the lake bottom. As notable as the turbidity spikes in the Phoenix/Mote samples is the rapidity with which the turbidity diminished. The aforementioned measurement of 29.0 NTUs had diminished to 2.8 NTUs within eight minutes. This is consistent with the testimony of Ms. Jennings that the nature of the sediments in the Butler Chain is such that turbidity settles out very quickly. Michael Henry, a senior chemist at Mote Marine, concurred that three minutes is enough time for boat ramp sediments to clear on Lake Down. The turbidity sampling by Phoenix/Mote over the Labor Day weekend of 1995 was not conducted with an approved quality assurance and control plan. Mr. Armstrong thus made the decision that further turbidity sampling should be done, using the proper protocols. The second turbidity sampling by Mote Marine, performed on October 26, 1997, and corrected on February 13, 1998, showed values much closer to those found in the Orange County sampling. The highest properly recorded value was a reading of 6.54 NTUs at the Lake Down boat ramp, and this value settled to 1.5 NTUs within eight minutes. As to this second Mote Marine study, Orange County contends that Mote Marine used bottles for taking samples that were not laboratory cleaned, did not properly calibrate the equipment, used a blank test sample which their records indicated had expired, and improperly influenced the results of the sampling by wading out to the sample area. None of these contentions is supported by the evidence. Mote Marine ran out of laboratory cleaned bottles before it had completed sampling, and thus was required to field clean and reuse 15 bottles. The weight of the evidence is that Mote Marine properly field cleaned those bottles in accordance with the section of its filed QAP dealing with cleaning procedures for equipment not being used for trace analyses. Orange County’s criticisms might have been well taken had Mote Marine been collecting samples for naphthalene testing, but not for collection of turbidity samples. Mote Marine’s turbidity meter was bench calibrated by a senior chemist at Mote Marine about four days prior to the actual testing. Continuing calibration verification (“CCV”) was performed in the field. Mr. Henry testified that the meter was performing perfectly, and that it is acceptable practice to use a meter over several days without a bench calibration, provided it has not malfunctioned during a CCV. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that Mote Marine properly calibrated its turbidity meter. In calibrating the meter, the senior chemist employs a formazin standard, which is diluted to a specific concentration, placed in the meter and read, generating a calibration curve to which the rest of the unknown samples are calibrated. The calibration was performed on October 23, 1997, but the report prepared by the chemist indicates that two of the formazin standard dilutions used had expiration dates of April 23, 1997. Orange County contends that the use of these apparently expired formazin standards compromised the calibration and rendered unreliable the turbidity sampling conducted by Mote Marine. Mr. Henry testified that the formazin standard in question was purchased and received via express delivery on October 23, 1997, the day the calibration was conducted. The chemist performed the dilutions, which at the levels in question had a six month expiration date. Thus, these dilutions would have had an expiration date of April 23, 1998. Mr. Henry testified that the chemist simply made an error in writing down “4/23/97” rather than the correct date of “4/23/98.” Mr. Henry’s explanation is plausible and is accepted. Mote Marine did not use expired calibration blanks. Mr. Henry testified that the sampling was accomplished by wading into the water to about shin height, opening the lid to the sample bottle, stepping forward, rinsing the bottle, stepping forward again, then collecting the sample. Mr. Henry stated that this was an acceptable procedure. His presence in the water did not itself cause turbidity because sediments do not kick straight up from the bottom, and his reaching out to collect the sample eliminated any potential for collecting samples influenced by his presence. Ms. Jennings correctly pointed out that the better sampling method would involve standing on shore or in a boat and using an extension pole to take the sample, eliminating any remote possibility of taking a sample tainted by sampler-caused turbidity. However, the weight of the evidence, including the essential similarity of results for all the reliably conducted turbidity samplings introduced in this case, is that the method used by Mr. Henry did not influence the results of the October 1997 sampling conducted by Mote Marine. However, Petitioners failed to establish that the minor and very short-term elevations in turbidity found around the Lake Down boat ramp constituted a degradation of water quality, or would be repeated at the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp. There are many distinctions between the existing Lake Down ramp and the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. The Lake Down ramp has no surface water management system. The storm water runoff from the adjacent Conway- Windermere Road and from the boat ramp itself flows directly into Lake Down in the vicinity of the boat ramp. In contrast, the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp will provide dry retention for up to a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, so that unfiltered storm water will not reach the lake system. The Lake Down ramp has no accessory dock, which can reduce turbidity caused by boaters stirring up the bottom when climbing into the boat. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have such a dock. The Lake Down ramp does not have a concrete ramp extending beneath the launching point to minimize dredging the bottom. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have such an extended concrete ramp. At the Lake Down ramp, boaters must moor their boats along the shoreline while taking their vehicles and trailers to the parking lot. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have a queuing system to prevent the erosion and turbidity caused by shoreline mooring, which will be prohibited. There is no prohibition on power loading at the Lake Down ramp, which also is not deep enough to allow boats to float easily on and off their trailers. Power loading will be prohibited at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp, and in any event will not be necessary because the depth of the water and the design of the ramp will enable boats to float on and off their trailers. In conclusion, it is found that none of the samplings taken by any of the parties in this proceeding establishes that the water quality of Lake Isleworth specifically or of the Butler Chain generally will be degraded or lessened by turbidity caused by boating activity around the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Based on the Operational Plan, the design, the water quality sampling and modeling, the District determined that there will be no adverse secondary impacts from the proposed boat ramp or associated activity. After considering all existing boat ramps, marinas and other projects on the Butler Chain of Lakes, the District concluded that the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp will not have an accumulation of impacts and pollutants in its home lake system and does not have the potential to contribute any cumulative impacts throughout the Butler Chain of Lakes. At the R.D. Keene Park, Orange County owns 1,780 feet of shoreline. Existing rules provide an exemption that would allow one boat dock for every 65 feet of shoreline, meaning that up to 27 exempt docks could be placed along this 1,780 feet of shoreline if it were in private hands and not subject to the conservation easement that is being granted by Orange County. 166. The water quality sampling performed in this case demonstrated that existing projects and activities have not resulted in an accumulation of impacts to the Butler Chain of Lakes. The historic water quality data demonstrate there have been no major changes in water quality over the 10-year period of record and that the trend is, if anything, toward improved water quality. The water quality is excellent and has maintained its superior quality since 1983, even though residential development and boat usage on the Butler Chain of Lakes has steadily increased over the last ten years. There is no boat ramp currently located at the property owned by Orange County on Lake Sheen. The Lake Sheen site has three homes and two docks on it at present. The District has no applications pending for similar projects that would be considered as part of the cumulative impact review. No applications for a boat ramp at Lake Sheen have been submitted by Orange County nor is there a boat ramp currently under construction at that site. No applications for a public boat ramp, other than the one at issue in this proceeding, have been submitted to the District by Orange County. The east side of the Butler Chain of Lakes is fully developed. There is no evidence of any Development of Regional Impact that would include a boat ramp for the west portion of the Chain. The zoning and land use designations of the property owned by Orange County on Lake Sheen are rural country estate on part of the property and low density residential on the other part of the property. There is no evidence that the Lake Sheen site is under review, vested or approved as a Development of Regional Impact. PUBLIC INTEREST TEST As further described in the Conclusions of Law below, an applicant for a project located in an OFW must provide reasonable assurances that the project is clearly in the public interest. The public interest test weighs and balances seven factors, as listed in the subheadings below. Extensive testimony was elicited from several expert witnesses who offered their applications of the public interest test. Anna Hacha-Long, Manager of Orange County EPD, and Pamela Thomas, Senior Environmental Specialist of Orange County EPD, both concluded that the proposed project was clearly in the public interest. Dale Mudrak, Orange County’s construction, design and project management expert, concluded that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. Dr. Douglas Durbin, Orange County’s expert in limnology, ecology, water quality and permitting, concluded that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. Robert Robbins, Director of the Natural Resource Management Division of the District, concluded on the District’s behalf that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The only expert who concluded that the project is not in the public interest was Randall Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS The parties stipulated that the proposed boat ramp facility will not adversely affect the public health. The proposed ramp will improve public safety as follows: The proposed ramp, centrally located in the Butler Chain, will provide quicker access for emergency rescue in the case of injuries to boaters or skiers. The proposed ramp should somewhat alleviate the traffic concern at the Lake Down ramp by shifting some traffic away from the Lake Down ramp. The proposed ramp will enhance public welfare by: increasing the recreational opportunities to the Butler Chain of Lakes; allowing access to the Butler Chain of Lakes by handicapped and disabled individuals; and the clean up of diesel fuel contamination that Orange County has already performed on the site. Orange County EPD performs extensive aquatic plant management activities on the Butler Chain, including spraying for harmful exotic plants. If Orange County were to lose access to the Butler Chain -- a real possibility should the proposed project not be built and the lease for parking at the Lake Down ramp expire -- it could also lose public grant money for aquatic plant management. The proposed project will not impact the property of others because: Orange County owns the land on which the ramp will be built, and the State of Florida owns the water into which the boats will be launched. Orange County EPD has received no complaints from property owners related to the existing use of the Butler Chain of Lakes by boaters. No-wake zone regulations prohibit high speed boating activities within 100 feet of the shoreline, protecting boaters and the property of adjacent landowners. The area is extensively regulated by both the Butler Patrol and full-time Orange County EPD staff. The canals connecting the lakes are wide enough that there will be no safety problems related to boating through the canals. CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, INCLUDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, OR THEIR HABITATS Orange County is providing 0.56 acres of mitigation by way of wetland creation, which offsets not only the 0.07 acres of direct wetland impact from construction and 0.07 acres of secondary impacts caused by removal of littoral zone vegetation, but also the District’s doubling of the usual two-to-one mitigation ratio for wetlands impacts. The District doubled the usual mitigation ratio as a conservative measure to account for the slight possibility of boats disturbing the area in the vicinity of the boat ramp. The parties have stipulated that the proposed boat ramp facility will not adversely affect the conservation of endangered species or their habitats, will not affect the conservation of threatened species or their habitats, and will not adversely impact gopher tortoises. The proposed project benefits the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats. Some habitat will be impacted by the construction of the boat ramp, but Orange County is providing mitigation many times larger than the area being developed, and is placing 1.61 acres of wetlands under a conservation easement to ensure that the land cannot be altered from its natural state. A total of 2.90 acres of wetland preservation, wetland creation, and upland buffer areas will be placed under conservation easement. Thus, habitat will enjoy a net enhancement from the project. Multiple evaluations of plant and animal parameters in the ecosystem led the District reasonably to conclude that the increase in habitat and habitat diversity due to the mitigation and conservation easements will provide net benefits to wildlife. The proposed boat ramp and associated activity will not cause any negative impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats, except for the unavoidable immediate impacts caused by the footprint of the ramp itself. As described above, these impacts are addressed in Orange County’s mitigation plan. Orange County EPD has not seen a decline in fish populations, nor any fish kills, nor any type of damage due to increased turbidity from natural or man-made causes in the Butler Chain of Lakes. It is reasonable to find that this project is unlikely to lead to such impacts. NAVIGATION OR FLOW OF WATER OR HARMFUL EROSION OR SHOALING The parties have stipulated that the proposed boat ramp and associated activities will not adversely affect the flow of water. There is no evidence of harmful erosion or shoaling from the existing boat traffic, even though the traffic has steadily increased over the years. Orange County EPD has not seen sand bar formation or erosion at first hand, nor has it received complaints about erosion. Orange County has not been required to dredge the canals interconnecting the lakes since the 1980s. The proposed project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling because the dimensions of the canals are sufficient for boats to pass, and the edges of the canals are well vegetated. Mr. Armstrong's contrary testimony, based on a single visit to the Butler Chain over the past ten years, is not credited. It is reasonable to believe that the ramp will reduce traffic through the canals by providing a public point of access that is more centrally located than the current one at Lake Down. Boaters will be able to enter the Butler Chain at a point nearer their intended destination. At the very least, the flow of boating traffic should be more evenly distributed, as all boats entering the Butler Chain will no longer be forced to proceed through the canals connected to Lake Down. The main cause of harmful erosion on the Butler Chain is residents’ failure to use turbidity or erosion barriers when they pull up aquatic or semi-aquatic plants along the shoreline. This project is thus unrelated to the true causes of turbidity in the Butler Chain. The proposed project is designed and will be managed to minimize the potential for dredging or erosion from boat propellers, as follows: The boat ramp itself is designed to accommodate two boats launching simultaneously. The boat ramp has adjacent docks and structures so that boats can raft to these structures during launching and loading, rather than running into the shoreline or tying to vegetation. The proposed project will also have a 230-foot long queuing system for mooring boats on the west side of the ramp. The queuing system will also act as a barrier to prevent boaters from using the shoreline to access their vehicles. The Operational Plan prohibits power loading and unloading, minimizing the potential for erosion at the ramp. Officer Jeffrey Hudson of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Windermere Water and Navigational Control District, regularly patrols the Butler Chain of Lakes. He foresees no navigational problems arising from the placement of the boat ramp, because of the no-wake zones and because people will be launching from a cove that gives them a good view of traffic in the lake before they enter. Because of the size of the Butler Chain of Lakes, there is a natural timing factor that will regulate the sequence of boaters returning to the proposed ramp. Even if a large storm arose suddenly, all the boats in the water would not arrive at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp at once because of the differing amounts of time it would take boats to arrive from their dispersed positions on the Butler Chain. The only expert witness who testified that the third factor weighed negatively against the public interest was Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental. Mr. Armstrong’s testimony that the connecting canals are too narrow for boats to comfortably pass each other is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the documentary and other testimonial evidence. Mr. Armstrong’s characterization of the potential for increased boating traffic in the southern portion of the Butler Chain as a negative factor is likewise rejected. Providing increased recreational access for the general public is one of the chief positive aspects of this project. Mr. Armstrong also expressed concern that the ramp’s location on a small, pass-through lake, and its placement therein, would mean that boats coming into or away from the ramp would be crossing directly into the path of boats passing through. Officer Hudson’s contrary testimony that the placement of the new ramp will not cause navigational or safety problems is accepted as based on superior knowledge of the Butler Chain of Lakes and greater expertise in boating and navigational safety. Mr. Armstrong testified that boat wakes would cause erosion. He testified that on his visit to the Butler Chain, he saw banks in canals undercut and roots exposed in areas where the vegetation was not heavy. As noted above, Mr. Armstrong has been on the Butler Chain once in the past ten years. Pamela Thomas of Orange County EPD, who has spent hundreds of hours studying the Butler Chain and regularly boats on the lakes in connection with her job, testified that the main cause of erosion is the clearing of vegetation by residents who wish to have beaches. Boat wakes cause few problems, particularly in the canals, because of the no-wake zones and their strict enforcement. Ms. Thomas’ testimony is accepted as based on superior knowledge and expertise regarding erosion in the Butler Chain of Lakes. FISHING OR RECREATIONAL VALUES OR MARINE PRODUCTIVITY The January 1984 DEP report recommending designation of the Butler Chain of Lakes as an OFW cited the need for increased public access to the Butler Chain. The report specifically noted the fact that there was only one public boat ramp on the Butler Chain and that this ramp had limited parking. This situation has remained unchanged in the intervening 14 years. The Lake Down ramp remains the only point of access for the general public to the Butler Chain of Lakes, and provides only limited access to the entire chain during the periods when Lake Down is waterlocked by the low bridge over the Wauseon Bay canal. The proposed boat ramp will enhance the fishing and recreational value by providing increased and easier public access to the Butler Chain of Lakes for fishing and recreational purposes. Even though "marine” productivity is typically applied to saltwater rather than freshwater systems, the proposed project will actually enhance productivity due to the amount of mitigation. Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental contended that this factor should be viewed negatively because there will be less opportunity for fishing in the cove immediately adjacent to the proposed boat ramp, due to the launching and loading activity. It may be true that providing greater public access will inconvenience those who already have access to the Butler Chain by other means, but it is implausible to suggest that improved public access be considered a negative aspect of the proposed project. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT The proposed boat ramp facility will be permanent. The increased mitigation, conservation easement and public access are also permanent. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed boat ramp facility will neither adversely affect nor enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. CURRENT CONDITION AND RELATIVE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS BEING PERFORMED BY AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY The proposed ramp will be placed in a section of the lake shoreline that was previously dredged out as a canal. Thus, Orange County has chosen an area already impacted by development rather than an environmentally pristine location for the boat ramp. The site was originally used as a citrus grove and will be enhanced by the wetlands creation. When Orange County acquired the site, it had a pump house with a leaking diesel fuel pump that was contaminating both the soil and Lake Isleworth. Orange County performed environmental remediation on the site preparatory to installing the proposed boat ramp. The removal of 21 tons of contaminated soil is a positive factor in terms of fish and wildlife. Petitioners attempted to minimize this aspect by arguing that Orange County, as the owner of the contaminated property, would have been required by law to perform the remediation regardless of whether the boat ramp is ever built. This argument is rejected, because the weight of the evidence is that Orange County purchased this property for the express purpose of placing a park and boat ramp on it. Orange County’s ownership of the property, and the consequent duty to remediate the contamination, are inextricably linked with Orange County’s plans to build a boat ramp on the site. The mitigation associated with the proposed ramp will increase wetland habitat and thus improve the ecological value of the site, another positive factor under this heading. In summary, every judgmental factor in the public interest test weighs in favor of a finding that this project is clearly in the public interest. ALTERNATIVE SITES Subject to the relevance objections of the District and Orange County, on which a ruling was withheld at the time of hearing, Petitioners offered evidence regarding Orange County’s consideration of boat ramp sites other than the R.D. Keene site. Orange County owns property on Lake Sheen, a large lake on the southern end of the Butler Chain of Lakes. Orange County intends to construct a boat ramp on this property, as part of its strategy to enhance public access to the Butler Chain by way of offering public ramps in the northern, central, and southern portions of the lake system. The District is and has been aware that Orange County eventually plans to build a boat ramp on Lake Sheen, though the formal permitting process has yet to commence. Orange County EPD has estimated the cost of developing the R.D. Keene boat ramp at $1,068,000, and the cost of developing the Lake Sheen ramp at $560,000. Orange County has prepared a scope of services for the design of the proposed Lake Sheen ramp, selected a design firm, issued a notice to proceed with design. The design firm is currently designing the Lake Sheen ramp. Petitioners assert, and the District admits, that the District did not consider the planned Lake Sheen ramp as an alternative to the R.D. Keene site. For reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below, the District was not required to consider alternatives to the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. The evidence presented by Petitioners regarding the planned Lake Sheen ramp is irrelevant insofar as Petitioners seek to establish an obligation on the part of the District to review alternative project sites to the one proposed by Orange County and/or to require Orange County to modify its ERP application to propose a different site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Environmental Resource Permit No. 940519-1 to Orange County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the District's Staff Review Summaries. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Duke Woodson, Esquire Mary A. Doty, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, Florida 32802-2193 Linda Brehmer Lanosa, Esquire Assistant County Attorney LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1998. Orange County Attorney’s Office 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 650 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Palmer, Esquire Palmer & Palmer, P.A. 3117-B Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Julie Kendig-Schrader, Esquire John Fumero, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Office of Counsel, South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and the November 19, 2019, proprietary Letter of Consent for a 2,203 square foot dock should be issued as described and authorized by the December 6, 2019, Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, entered between Respondent Andrew Kent and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal in Romeo Point, Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. Petitioners use the waters of Doctors Lake for recreational purposes, and have navigated to and from Doctors Lake, or reasonably expected as riparian property owners to do so, via the permitted and dredged navigational boat access channel leading from the western canal to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. Petitioners have challenged the Consent Order that authorizes issuance of the revised general permit for a residential dock that bisects and severs the navigational boat access channel. Thus, Petitioners have standing under section 120.569. Mr. Kent is the owner of Lot 18 of the Romeo Point subdivision. Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18 in 2017, and constructed a home there, 2059 Castle Point Court, Fleming Island, Florida, in which he currently resides. Mr. Kent is a party to the Consent Order, and proposed recipient of the ERP and Letter of Consent at issue in this proceeding. DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 253, 373 (Part IV), and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, regarding activities in surface waters of the state, and in Florida Administrative Code Title 18, governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The BTIITF is a collegial body that holds title to sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public. Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.; § 253.001, Fla. Stat. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The SJRWMD “shall perform the staff duties and functions related to the review of any application for authorization to use board of trustees-owned submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the water management district has permitting responsibility as set forth in an operating agreement” between DEP and the SJRWMD. Id. Review and approval of general permits and individual ERPs in Clay County generally falls within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD pursuant to the July 1, 2007, Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP (“Joint Agreement”). DEP and the SJRWMD have been delegated the authority by the BTIITF to take final agency action on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, without any action by the BTIITF, with the delegated entity to be established by rule. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat. Rule 18- 21.0051(2) provides that DEP and the water management districts “are delegated the authority to review and take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the application involves an activity for which that agency has permitting responsibility, as set forth in the respective operating agreements.” Romeo Point Romeo Point is located on Doctors Lake in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The confluence of Doctors Lake with the St. Johns River is generally considered to be at the U.S. Highway 17 bridge, with Doctors Lake to its west, and the St. Johns River to its east. Doctors Lake is tidally influenced, with the range of tides generally being about one foot from high to low, but as much as 1.25 feet and as little as 0.8 feet depending on the phase of the moon. In addition, there are times when a confluence of a full moon, low tide, and winds to the east can pull water from the lake, which can result in even shallow draft vessels grounding in normally shallow areas unless they have access to a deeper water channel. In 2002, the Romeo Point property was purchased by Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for development as a residential subdivision. The Romeo Point subdivision included the western canal on which five waterfront lots were created. Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal. As part of the development, two permits were applied for and obtained from the SJRWMD. Mr. Goria, a licensed professional engineer, was part of the development team. SJRWMD Permit No 40-019-86850-1 authorized the stormwater management system for the Romeo Point subdivision. Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP separately applied for permits from the SJRWMD and the Corps for “a boat access channel and [ ] a bulkhead on the western property line to facilitate access to Doctors Lake.” Its purpose was, specifically, to allow access for the future homeowners along the western canal to Doctors Lake. The boat access channel followed the course of an existing, though somewhat narrower channel used by the previous property owner and others. SJRWMD issued Permit No. 40-019-86850-2 (the “Dash-2 Permit”) for “[d]redging of a boat access channel and construction of a bulkhead along a section of the channel at Romeo Point Subdivision.” The boat access channel extended from the mouth of the western canal northward along the shoreline in front of and past Lots 19 and 18, then turning to the west at Lot 17 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. The boat access channel was approximately 35 feet wide with 4:1 side contours, with its centerline about 30 feet off of the bulkhead. The Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit noted that “[t]he proposed dredging [of the boat access channel] will give water access to 5-lots along the western property line.” The SJRWMD Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit also established that, upon completion of construction, the “Final O&M [operation and maintenance] Entity” was to be the Romeo Point Homeowner Association. The boat access channel allowed vessels from the western canal to navigate around a cattail dominated shoal. Although the cattails no longer grow in the area, the shallow water shoal remains to varying degrees. Among the conditions made part of the Dash-2 Permit were that the permittee purchase 0.82 mitigation credits from the Sundew Mitigation Bank. The SJRWMD also issued a Consent of Use for state-owned submerged lands to Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for “Dredging of Boat Access Channel in Doctors Lake at Romeo Point - Permit # 40-019-86850-2.” The permittee was required to pay $2,978.75 to DEP for severed dredge material, with the SJRWMD permit number provided to DEP on the check and the cover letter. On December 16, 2003, the Corps issued Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW) to Floridays Development Group, Inc.,2 to “construct a single-family, residential subdivision and bulkhead, dredge a man-made canal and entrance channel into Doctors Lake, and also construct 7 new single-family docks.” The Corps permit required the purchase of 1.86 mitigation credits. The permit plans clearly depict both the western canal and the boat access channel into Doctors Lake. The Corps permit also permitted shoreline docks at Lots 18 and 19, with the permitted dock at Lot 18 to extend from the bulkhead to the edge of the boat access channel. The shoreline dock was sufficient to provide navigational access from Lot 18 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel. The docks along the boat access channel were permitted as part of the Corps permit to ensure those docks would not block access to the channel. Other docks were also permitted by the Corps for the Romeo Point subdivision that extended further into Doctors Lake to provide navigational access for lots that did not have direct access to the boat access channel. 2 Floridays Development Group, Inc., was a company owned by Mr. Goria that owned the membership interest in Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP. There was no dispute that the Corps permit constituted Federal authorization for the boat access channel. By sometime in 2004, all construction authorized by the permits, including the dredging of the boat access channel, was complete, and Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP moved to the marketing and sales phase. On October 3, 2005, and as contemplated by the Dash-2 Permit, the SJRWMD permits were transferred from Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP to Romeo Point Owners Association, Inc., for operation and maintenance. The transfer applied to both the stormwater permit and the boat access channel permit. There is nothing to suggest that the transfer to the owners’ association was improper or insufficient to transfer rights under the Dash-2 Permit. Navigation To and From the Western Canal When Petitioners bought property along the western canal, the boat access channel had been permitted and constructed for the specific purpose of providing those canal-front lots with reliable, deep-water navigable access to Doctors Lake. Persons owning, renting, visiting, or using those lots, or otherwise wanting to access the western canal, were customary users of the boat access channel. Water depths along the shoal that exists waterward of the boat access channel between the mouth of the western canal to the current location of the Lot 18 Dock were measured by DEP to range from 2 feet, 9 inches (33 inches) to 3 feet, 8 inches (44 inches) at a “rising tide towards high tide.” At the normal 12 inch tidal range, depths would be expected to range from 21 inches to 32 inches+/- at low tide. During full moons, the low tides could be as much as 0.25 feet (3 inches) lower over three or four days. Thus, the deepest area along the shoal could, on a monthly basis, be as shallow as 29 inches in depth. In order to address the issue of safe and reliable navigational access, conditions at low tide provide the best assessment of a waterway and the ability of boats to navigate in the area. Photographic evidence of Mr. Sheffler dragging his 20-foot boat through less than knee-deep water across the shoal at its deepest point near the Lot 18 Dock supports a finding that water depths across the shoal are, with regularity, insufficient to support safe navigation. In 2017, Mr. Sheffler purchased an existing home and boat lift on lot 23 along the western canal. The prior owner had previously kept a 24 and one half-foot boat on the boat lift. Mr. Sheffler kept a 21-foot Bayliner on the lift after he bought the house, which had a two foot, 10 inch (i.e., 34-inch) draft. He sold that boat with the thought of buying a larger boat for skiing, wakeboarding, and watersports with his four children. Those plans were shelved pending the resolution of this proceeding. Currently, Mr. Sheffler uses his father’s 19-foot Seafox center console boat with a 24-inch draft, which he used to navigate into Doctors Lake through the boat access channel prior to the time Mr. Kent constructed the Lot 18 Dock. He is able to navigate across the shoal at high tide, but otherwise the shoal presents an obstruction. In 2017, Mr. Davis built a home on lot 22 along the western canal that included a boat lift that could accommodate a 24-foot boat. Mr. Davis already owned a 19-foot Stingray boat with an inboard/outboard motor that he docked at his lot, and used the boat access channel to access Doctors Lake. Mr. Davis testified that, after July 4, 2019, when the Lot 18 Dock was substantially completed, he could not safely navigate around the dock, and that he ran aground on the shoal at low tide. His testimony is credited. Due to the difficulties in maneuvering his 19-foot Stingray across the shoal to the open waters of Doctors Lake, Mr. Davis postponed his planned purchase of a larger boat pending the results of this proceeding. Sadly, Mr. Davis passed during the course of the hearing, before he could buy the boat he wanted. Mr. Hudson is Mr. Davis’s son-in-law. He is an experienced boater, and has boated to the Davis home from Doctors Lake in his 20-foot Regal boat using the boat access channel. His boat is comparatively heavy, with an inboard/outboard motor and a 34-inch draft. Mr. Hudson was unable to easily and safely navigate to the Davis home after the construction of the Lot 18 Dock without grounding on the shoal at low tide. In 2017, Mr. Fuzzell purchased Lot 20 and Lot 21. Lot 20 partially fronts on Doctors Lake. Mr. Fuzzell constructed a house on each lot, each with a boat lift designed to accommodate a boat up to 26 feet in length. Mr. Fuzzell rents the house on lot 21, at which his current tenant keeps a 21-foot boat. Mr. Fuzzell built his house on Lot 20 with the expectation of purchasing a boat of sufficient size to put his family aboard, up to a 26-foot boat. Due to the blockage of the boat access channel by the Lot 18 Dock, the purchase was postponed and altered pending resolution of this proceeding. Mr. Ergle owns Lot 24 along the western canal. He has not developed the lot with a house or a boat dock. He is, nonetheless, a riparian owner. When he bought the lot, a primary reason was his expectation that he would be able to build a boat dock and keep a boat of around 24 feet. Mr. Ergle currently owns a small Boston Whaler, which he has used to visit his property. While the boat only has a 10-inch draft, Mr. Ergle has touched bottom along the shoal between the mouth of the western canal and the current Lot 18 Dock. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified to his familiarity with the area, and stated that “[i]f you were to come straight out from the channel, there's a shoal, shallow water out there, which I know about because I've gone through there. I wouldn't dare go that close to the shoreline because of how shallow it gets over that way.” Mr. Tomasi, a Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer (Ret.) visited the area in April 2019. He went through the area in Mr. Davis’s 19-foot Stingray, and testified that they “bumped bottom” with the boat’s hull at various places, including along the “deeper” areas along the shoal. The motor was tilted up as far as possible during the trip so as to avoid having silt sucked into the water intake which could damage the motor. Mr. Tomasi noted that, like bottom contours of any water body, “it's not a complete flat, glass bottom. I mean, you're going to have contours in the sea bed and there's going to be areas that get down. You're going to have some highs and some low areas out there.”3 He stated that, during the visit, “I never found a clear path to where I could come out going somewhere along that boat access channel and then be able to cut straight out without at some point bumping bottom.” It was Mr. Tomasi’s opinion that “[i]t's not a reasonable expectation that somebody should have to attempt to hazard their boat to get in and out of their dock or their canal.” His opinion is credited and accepted. The undersigned is not unmindful of the testimony of Captain Suber, who is every bit as worthy of respect as Lt. Commander Van Hook and Mr. Tomasi. Captain Suber visited the site at roughly low tide “a week or two” prior to the hearing in a “bay boat.” He testified that there were areas along the shoal that were not passable, but through trial and error, he was able to find a way out -- or rather a way in, since he was “out in the lake and looking in” -- without grounding. However his opinion regarding navigability was quite conditioned, providing that: Well, from -- from what I see, the waterway is -- you know, it is what it is.· It's shallow and you have to be cautious, but you can get in and out of that -- that canal at low tide. This is one of those areas where local knowledge is a -- is a must. Someone that don't know anything about the waterway right in this area, they probably would stay away from this. But if you live on this area of the waterway and you know the bottom out there, you should be able to get all of these vessels that have been in question in and out of there at any time by using caution If it's -- if it's an outboard, simpler, yes, all of them, any one that I would think would be able to get in and out of there. An inboard/outboard would be possible and probable. Inboards, those drafts on those are -- and they're so sensitive, you 3 Mr. Tomasi’s testimony supports a finding that, although DEP measured a maximum of 3.8 feet along the shoal at high tide, that does not establish 3.8 feet as a uniform depth around that point. Natural undulations could cause that depth to be more or less, which would explain the “bumping.” know, if I owned one, I probably would stay out of these swallower areas with one. Most people that have full inboards, they don't even want to try to get into places like that. Captain Suber’s testimony was worthy of belief. However, to the extent his opinion was that the Lot 18 Dock did not create an impediment to navigation, it was simply outweighed by other more persuasive evidence in the record. Purchase of Lot 18 Mr. Kent became aware that Lot 18 was on the market at some point in 2015, and engaged in a series of negotiations with the owners to purchase the lake-front property. After a period of unsuccessful efforts to purchase Lot 18, Mr. Kent “caught [the owner] at the right time,” and acquired the property in 2016. At the time of the purchase, Mr. Kent knew of lots on the western canal, but was not interested in them because “I didn’t want to be limited to the size of boat that I … used,” and “I wanted a long dock to put a -- I wanted a couple of boat lifts just like I do, just like the neighbors.” The line at which four-foot of depth in the boat access channel existed, and the point to which Mr. Kent would have to “wharf out” from Lot 18 to achieve four feet of navigable depth, was roughly 12 to 15 feet from the Lot 18 bulkhead. Around the last week of September or the first week of October 2017, prior to his construction -- or planning -- of the Lot 18 Dock, Mr. Kent, while on a walk around the neighborhood where he then lived, ran across his neighbors, Mr. Goria and Lt. Commander Van Hook. Mr. Kent knew that Mr. Goria had been involved in the development of Romeo Point, and took the opportunity to inquire about the area, and discussed his desire to build a long dock, similar to his neighbor’s dock to the north, extending from the shoreline of Lot 18 to the open waters of Doctors Lake. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that “we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17.” Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock,4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that “well, that's their problem. They can't stop me.” Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria “made it 100 percent clear on a two-way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. … access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake.” He testified to his recollection of the conversation that “I know [Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it up against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off.” He then stated that Mr. Kent’s “only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock.” When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent’s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, “I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. … Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it.” boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied, “Yes, sir, without a doubt.” Mr. Kent disputed his response, or even understanding, of the information provided by Mr. Goria, testifying unconvincingly that he thought Mr. Goria was talking about the western canal. Nonetheless, Mr. Goria provided clear and accurate information that a SJRWMD permitted boat access channel crossed the front of Lot 18 and provided residents in the area the 24-hour right to deeper water without restricting them to the tides, and that Mr. Kent was likely to have difficulty obtaining regulatory approval for his dock. While it is impossible to know what might have been going through his mind, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the boat access channel, and knew that the Lot 18 Dock as he wanted it would sever navigational access for residents along the western canal.5 The First General Permit Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, and proceeded to make application to DEP for the first general permit. Since the Romeo Point subdivision was subject to two SJRWMD permits, the Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP, dated July 1, 2007 (“Joint Agreement”), called for further permits affecting the area to be processed by SJRWMD. That did not occur. Mr. Kent hired C&H Marine, which prepared the application for the permit, submitted it to DEP, and ultimately constructed the Lot 18 Dock. The first general permit application called for the construction of “a single-family dock less than 2,000 sq. feet with one slip.” The application 5 Mr. Goria’s and Lt. Commander Van Hook’s testimony as to Mr. Kent’s statements, offered by Petitioners, constitute admissions of a party opponent, and are, therefore, not hearsay. § 90.803(18). Fla. Stat. Neither Mr. Goria nor Lt. Commander Van Hook has any direct interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and both were credible and persuasive. Their testimony is accepted, and supports the inference of Mr. Kent’s knowledge of the boat access channel and its effect on Petitioners prior to the permitting of the Lot 18 Dock. drawings showed that Lot 18 had 105 feet of frontage on Doctors Lake, and depicted a five-foot wide dock that extended 150 feet into Doctors Lake, with a 20-foot x 10-foot terminal platform and a boat lift totaling 865 square feet for a total structure of 1,665 square feet.6 The dock was depicted as being five feet above the mean high water (“MHW”) elevation. A 25-foot riparian setback was shown between the Lot 18 Dock and the adjacent property to the north. The boat access channel was at least six feet deep at its center, roughly 35 feet wide, and four feet deep only 12 to 15 feet from the bulkhead. Even a minimally competent investigation would have revealed the channel. However, the application identified underwater bottom contours and depths that gradually and evenly sloped from shallow at the bulkhead to four feet deep at the terminus of the Lot 18 Dock. As noted by Ms. Mann, “[i]t showed a smooth -- relatively smooth seafloor bed.” The length of the dock on the permit application drawings was not to scale, with the application drawing being shortened through the use of “continuation marks.” Those continuation marks subsumed the section of lake bottom through which the boat access channel ran. Thus, the channel was not depicted in the application. Regardless of intent or reason, by its use of continuation marks in the application drawings, the contractor quite effectively managed to conceal the channel from DEP.7 Since the application was being filed on his behalf, it was Mr. Kent’s obligation to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Kent, despite having been told of the permitted channel and of the existence of regulatory permits 6 There was no definitive measure of the width of Lot 18. Though the application indicated it was 105 feet, Mr. Kent testified that “I’ve seen 101. I’ve seen 106. I’ve seen 104. So I guess it depends where you measure. I have no idea.” DEP later measured the width as 101 feet. 7 Since Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent that the boat access channel was going to make it difficult to obtain regulatory approval for his dock, the omission of what should have been a patently obvious subsurface feature existing no more than 15 feet off of the bulkhead, and the replacement of that section of lake bottom with continuation marks, seems more than coincidental. authorizing its construction, failed in that obligation, resulting in an application that was, at best, misleading. Furthermore, even accepting that neither Mr. Kent nor the contractor knew of the channel before construction commenced, which is a stretch, its existence absolutely had to have become apparent early on in construction. Mr. Kent or C&H Marine had an obligation at that time to disclose to DEP that the application was false and inaccurate. Neither did so. Upon receipt of the first general permit application, Ms. Mann reviewed the SJRWMD GIS system to determine if there were permits within a one-quarter mile radius of Lot 18. The depiction of that radius on a map appears to encompass most, if not all of the Romeo Point subdivision. The SJRWMD GIS system did not show any permits within the one-quarter mile radius except for a dock permit related to a lot to the north of Lot 18. Ms. Mann did not check the linked permit associated with that lot. Had she done so, she would have discovered the Corps authorization for the boat access channel. DEP’s ERP Checklist incorrectly indicated that the Lot 18 Dock application “was not in a WMD permitted area.” If DEP had correctly noted that the SJRWMD had issued permits for the Romeo Point subdivision, DEP would have had to coordinate the Lot 18 Dock application with the SJRWMD. DEP issued the first general permit on June 17, 2019, to “construct a 1,615 sq ft private residential single family dock consisting of an access pier and a covered boat slip and terminal platform, within Doctors Lake, a Class III Florida waterbody,” which included the Letter of Consent, as well as a State Programmatic General Permit V-R1 on behalf of the Corps. Notice of the first general permit was not provided to Petitioners either by actual notice or by publication. Petitioners’ Notice of the Lot 18 Dock After the first general permit was issued, Petitioners’ became aware of the proposed Lot 18 Dock when, during a homeowners’ association meeting that took place prior to the commencement of construction, Mr. Kent advised Mr. Davis that construction of the Lot 18 Dock was scheduled to begin the following week. That disclosure triggered a second meeting at Mr. Davis’s house that included the president of the homeowners’ association, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sheffler, Mr. Kent, and several other homeowners to discuss the fact that the Lot 18 Dock would block the boat access channel. Mr. Kent’s solution was not to delay the construction of the Lot 18 Dock to come to a solution, but rather, “if you guys ever[ ] get stuck and cannot navigate, I’ll participate in dredging your canal.” Petitioners made their concerns known to Mr. Kent well before the first piling was set for the Lot 18 Dock. Nonetheless, knowing then with certainty that a boat access channel existed along the shoreline in front of Lot 18, knowing that the application was misleading by omission, and knowing of his neighbors’ objections, Mr. Kent made no effort to disclose that information to DEP, and proceeded with construction. Petitioners advised DEP of their concerns on or about June 28, 2019, which included a description of the boat access channel,8 Petitioners expressed their objection to the Lot 18 Dock on the ground that it cut off their access to the permitted boat access channel. DEP took no action, despite then having knowledge that the application was false. Case No. 19-4192 On July 17, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for hearing to challenge the issuance of the first general permit for the Lot 18 Dock. The petition alleged that DEP provided them with an extension of time to file the petition 8 The exact date on which construction commenced was not disclosed. However, on July 4, 2019, the boat access channel was still passable, with only string marking its path. Thus, by June 28, 2019, DEP had information showing the falsity of the application that should have triggered some inquiry before the boat access channel was severed. on June 28, 2019, which is corroborative of testimony that Petitioners advised DEP of the boat access channel on that date. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2019, the petition was referred to DOAH and assigned as Case No. 19-4192. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the Lot 18 Dock crossed the existing navigational channel that Petitioners used to navigate motorized watercraft to the open waters of Doctor's Lake and the St. John's River, and created unnecessary restrictions on Petitioners’ access to those navigable waters. Case No. 19-4192 was set for hearing to commence on October 17, 2019. On September 27, 2019, DEP filed a Notice of Intent to Change Agency Action and Motion to Put Case Into Abeyance, in which DEP stated that it had taken enforcement action on the Lot 18 Dock as built. The Notice stated that DEP intended to require that Mr. Kent apply for another permit, which Petitioners would be able to contest. On December 18, 2019, the presiding ALJ relinquished jurisdiction over Case No. 19-4192 to DEP. The Lot 18 Dock As-built The Lot 18 Dock, as constructed, deviated materially from the dock as permitted. As important as the fact that the Lot 18 Dock was not compliant with the permit is that, as pilings were being set during the period of construction, it could not have been overlooked9 that the proposed dock was bisecting the deeper water boat access channel. However, no one advised DEP of the existence of the channel, an omission that, given the facts and the record of this proceeding, could only have been intentional, and could only have been to conceal the existence of the deeper water channel from DEP and other regulatory entities while construction of the Lot 18 Dock was completed. 9 It is impossible to conclude that a marine contractor, regardless of their degree of competence, could fail to notice that they were setting pilings in six feet of water rather than two feet of water. The Lot 18 Dock was constructed to a length of 193 feet, exceeding the 160-foot length (which includes the ten feet of terminal platform) depicted in the permit application drawings. Going out that extra length also, as described by Mr. Kent, “gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth.” Therefore, instead of the dock ending at the permitted four-foot (48 inches) depth, he now had up to 53 inches of depth, all the better for a bigger boat. Mr. Kent testified that he directed the contractor to build out to that length, because it would be cheaper to have it done while the equipment was on-site, rather than waiting to have the extra length permitted. The as-built lift was 36 feet in length, rather than the permitted 34 feet, and will hold a boat of 32 feet.10 The walkway of the dock was measured by DEP to be two feet, seven inches above MHW rather than the required five feet as permitted. The as-built structure also included four unpermitted pilings and a second boat lift. Mr. Kent believed that the pilings would be “permittable,” so went ahead and authorized the contractor to install them without waiting for a permit. The second lift will “probably hold a 26-footer.” C&H Marine installed cleats on several pilings for the terminal platform/boat lift that were suitable to allow an additional vessel to tie-up to the dock. Those cleats were -- purportedly -- installed without Mr. Kent’s knowledge, and have been removed. Mr. Kent was on vacation for some of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock.11 Upon his return, the dock was completed despite Petitioners’ objections, and despite a DEP request that he stop work. 10 The size of the boat could likely be greater, since the covered slip/lift was built two feet longer than permitted. 11 Mr. Kent testified to a general lack of knowledge of the course of the construction due to his vacation. However, he knew of the extra pilings, and approved their installation because he thought they would be “permittable.” He testified that during his vacation, he contacted Michelle Neely at DEP to inquire about a “residential bridge,” a discussion memorialized by Ms. Neely on July 24, 2019, in correspondence to Mr. Sheffler, though there was no direct evidence that he advised her of the boat access channel. He was on the site (“I walked out there. And at some point -- I can't give you a date as to when. It was before the big piece was built. That's for sure.”) and authorized C&H Marine to extend the Lot 18 Dock from 160 feet to its as-built 193 feet, stating that “[w]hen I asked him to extend it, I knew that wasn’t permitted yet, but it was permittable.” These issues do not directly apply to the issue of The August Compliance Inspections Reacting to information from Petitioners, DEP conducted site inspections of the Lot 18 Dock on August 21, 2019, and August 27, 2019. The as-built conditions described above were noted by DEP at those times, as was the fact that the dock “appears to be approximately 19 ft from the northern neighbor’s apparent riparian rights lines.” The ERP Inspection Report noted “Significant Non-Compliance” with the Lot 18 Dock. The report identified the SJRWMD permit “to allow for boat access,” but claimed “[d]uring the review process, inquiry on the SJRWMD ERP GIS page did not reveal the existing [sic] of a SJRWMD permit.” The ERP Inspection Report recognized that the western canal homeowners “claim[ed] the dock impedes their ability to use the channel along the shoreline, that was part of the SJRWMD permit #40-019-86850-2, and access Dr’s Lake.” The DEP staff recommendation was to allow Mr. Kent to keep the Lot 18 Dock as constructed, with a monetary fine and a minor corrective measure. The ERP Inspection Report noted that if Mr. Kent wanted three boat slips on the Lot 18 Dock, he would need to apply for a single family lease. The ERP Inspection Report made no further mention of the boat access channel or the SJRWMD permit, and gave no recognition or accommodation for the seemingly legitimate concerns of the western canal homeowners. Based on its observations, DEP issued Warning Letter No. WL19-213 to Mr. Kent noting that the dock “was constructed in a manner not consistent with your permit application and its supporting documentations.” As was the case with the ERP Inspection Report, the Warning Notice made no mention of the boat access channel, the SJRWMD permit, or Petitioners’ navigational concerns. whether the Lot 18 Dock impedes navigability, which it would have done whether it was 93 or 193 feet in length, and whether it has one or three slips. However, these issues demonstrate a general conscious disregard for the permitting authority of DEP, and affect the weight to be given Mr. Kent’s testimony. The October Compliance Inspection On October 15, 2019, following a complaint of a further unpermitted addition, DEP conducted a third compliance inspection. Previously, according to Mr. Durden, DEP “negotiated” with Mr. Kent, advising him that if he removed the unauthorized cleats that had been installed on the Lot 18 Dock, DEP “could issue the permit, because then he would have only two boat slips.” The October inspection revealed that, after DEP issued the Warning Notice, and despite his having been advised of the two-slip limitation, Mr. Kent installed an unpermitted floating personal water craft (PWC) dock midway along the span of the dock that was suitable for landing a jet-ski. Mr. Durden testified that “[h]e removed the cleats [which had been installed to create a third slip on the unpermitted second boat lift pilings]. And then a period of time passed and then he decided to install the ski lift.” Counting the unauthorized PWC lift, the Lot 18 Dock had -- and currently has -- three boat slips under DEP’s jurisdiction. The installation of the unauthorized floating dock while permitting and enforcement were ongoing suggests an ongoing and blatant disregard for DEP’s permitting and enforcement authority. The Consent Order On December 19, 2019, DEP and the BTIITF entered into a Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, with Mr. Kent to resolve all issues, including the unpermitted third PWC dock. Mr. Kent was charged a fine of $2,750.0012 to resolve the issues of non- compliance. Despite by then having information that established, as a matter 12 Mr. Kent was allowed to keep the Lot 18 Dock’s unauthorized “extra 30 feet [and corresponding] 4 or 5 more inches of depth,” the unpermitted second boat lift, and the floating PWC dock that was constructed after enforcement proceedings had commenced, without any corrective measures whatsoever, all for the modest “fine” of a $2,750, of which $250 was the “permit fee.” By the time the Consent Order was executed, DEP knew the Lot 18 Dock was severing a permitted navigational channel, and should have known, through months of involvement with Petitioners, including DOAH Case No. 19-4192 that the of law, that the Lot 18 Dock had three slips and did not qualify for a general permit, DEP nonetheless issued the revised general permit, including the Letter of Consent and water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Kent was not required to obtain an individual ERP or a single family lease. At the final hearing, DEP admitted that an individual ERP is required and, in the course of this de novo proceeding, asks that the Lot 18 Dock be measured against those standards. DEP made no mention in the Consent Order of the boat access channel. The Consent Order did not note that severing the channel forces Petitioners to have to navigate through shallow and unsafe waters to get to Doctors Lake from their homes, on which they may -- and have -- run aground. The Consent Order did not acknowledge the existence of the SJRWMD Dash-2 Permit or the Corps permit. DEP had knowledge of all of those things both as a result of its involvement in DOAH Case No. 19-4192 and as evidenced by its August 21, 2019, ERP Inspection Report. The Boat Access Channel as a Navigational Channel The boat access channel was permitted as a navigational channel by the SJRWMD and the Corps, and permission to use state owned lands for that purpose was granted by the BTIITF. When the boat access channel was dredged, its entrance to and from Doctors Lake was marked with two PVC pipes, which remain in their original positions. It is not uncommon for people to mark channels with PVC pipe. While the pipes are by no means “regulation” Coast Guard approved channel channel was customarily used, marked, and provided Petitioners with their only means of reliably safe navigation between the western canal and Doctors Lake. Rather than acknowledging its mistake in permitting an illegal dock, regardless of the circumstances, DEP reacted with casual diffidence, questioning the validity of the SJRWMD’s Dash-2 Permit, overlooking the Corps permit, ignoring that the dock encroached into, and severed, a permitted, marked, and customarily used navigation channel, and generally minimizing Petitioners’ legitimate rights of navigation. Perhaps, as surmised by Mr. Sheffler, DEP was “trying to figure out ways to, you know, kind of save face.” However, the rationale and merits markers, and are not particularly distinctive, they are private markers that are known by and provide navigational and boating information to lot owners and other customary users in the area for whom the boat access channel was designed, permitted, and constructed, and who are customary users of the boat access channel. Ms. Mann testified that “[i]t was [DEP’s] position that this was not marked not in a way that we would determine it to be in a navigable channel. PVC poles in the water don't really mean anything.” However, DEP has no rule defining what constitutes a marker sufficient to establish a “marked channel,” or that would establish a limitation that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. A preponderance of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the PVC pipes were, prior to its severance by the Lot 18 Dock, channel markers known to persons in and using the area as establishing the entrances to the boat access channel. Ms. Mann continued in her testimony, stating that “we saw plenty of people who went without needing to use the navigation channel, so we determined it was a customarily used navigation channel, that it was not needed.” At the time Ms. Mann visited the site, boaters could not use the navigational channel, since it was blocked. Boaters would not be relying on the markers since they marked the mouth of the channel on the other side of the Lot 18 Dock. Furthermore, Ms. Mann was on-site at close to high tide. That persons may, by necessity, be forced to navigate through unsafe waters or not navigate at all is no evidence that the navigation channel “was not needed.” The evidence in this case establishes by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence that the boat access channel was, before the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, both marked and customarily used. It provided safe and reliable navigable access to the western canal for residents -- or lack thereof -- of DEP’s actions are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is not an enforcement case. and their families and guests. Though sparsely used by the general public for fishing or boating, there is nothing to restrict such use. The boat access channel is, by all factual measures, a “navigational channel” as described by DEP rule. Effects on Navigation When Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, he had every bit as much access to the open waters of Doctors Lake as did Petitioners. He could have, as contemplated and approved by the Corps permit, constructed a parallel dock along the Lot 18 shoreline and freely accessed the navigable waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel in any vessel capable of operating in six feet of water. A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the record establishes that the depths along the shoal are not sufficient during all normal periods to safely navigate without a reasonable likelihood of grounding. That evidence is persuasive and accepted. Mr. Durden credibly testified that a person is “allowed to wharf out until you reach a depth of at least four -- well, 5 feet, which [DEP] would consider a safe depth to be able to have a boat.” Furthermore when asked whether it is “the department's policy for issuance of consent to use sovereign land, that you're entitled to get to 4 feet for your dock,” Ms. Mann responded that “I believe that is actually part of our regulatory 62-330.” Mr. Durden testified, and the evidence supports, that the boat access channel varied from between six feet to seven feet, 11 inches in depth when he conducted his on-site measurements at a “rising to high tide.” Thus, even at the lowest lunar tides, the boat access channel provided safe navigational depths to the owners of the western canal lots, and to Lot 18, of greater than four and a half feet. Ms. Mann candidly admitted that before the Lot 18 Dock was constructed, Mr. Kent had more than four feet of access for a dock and boat at his bulkhead. Mr. Kent admitted that Petitioners “don’t have the same water access -- deep water access to Doctors Lake that they had before [he] built [his] dock,” and that “their canal is 4½ feet deep. The channel goes to 6 foot deep, and now that 6-foot depth isn’t there all the way.” In fact, the only means of accessing Doctors Lake in the absence of the boat access channel does not even approach 4 and one half feet in depth, being in most places less than half that at low tide. Ms. Mann’s testimony that “[w]e determined that vessels had plenty of space to maneuver around Mr. Kent's dock” was simply and substantially outweighed by countervailing competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The impairment to navigation in this case could not be clearer. Mr. Kent had no interest in purchasing a canal-front lot because he “didn’t want to be limited” in the boat he could use -- with the Lot 18 Dock being able to accommodate two boats and additional PWC, with one lift suitable for a boat of a minimum of 32 feet, and the other which would “probably hold a 26-footer.” However, neither DEP nor Mr. Kent seemingly have any issue with the fact that Petitioners were previously not limited in owning any vessel that their slips could accommodate (generally up to 24 to 26 feet), and now they are limited to smaller, shallow draft boats that, even then, occasionally ground on the shoal. DEP and Mr. Kent both minimized the effect of the reduced depth for Petitioners to navigate, seemingly arguing that a depth of 29 to 32 inches -- the deepest point along the shoal at or near low tide13 -- is just as good as the four-foot depth acknowledged as being “a safe depth to be able to have a boat” 13 The maximum depth measured by DEP along the shoal was three feet, eight inches at a rising to high tide. Subtracting the normal 12 inch tidal range results in a depth of two feet, eight inches+/- (32 inches) at low tide. Every month for several days during the full moon, tides may vary by up to an additional 0.25 feet (3 inches) on both cycles. Thus, depths at the deepest point along the shoal are regularly reduced to 29 inches+/-. Furthermore, Mr. Sheffler measured depths in the vicinity of the Lot 18 Dock that were closer to two feet (24 inches). Given natural variations that occur on the bottom of natural bodies of water, both sets of measurements are credible. and safe for navigation by Mr. Durden and Ms. Mann, is just as good as the 53 inches of depth gained by Mr. Kent from his unpermitted dock extension, and is just as good as the six-foot depth of the boat access channel. The shallower, unsafe depths across the shoal are not just as good. Even Mr. Kent admitted that inches have navigable value, testifying with regard to the settlement of his illegal dock extension: I paid that fine. But I did that because it gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth. I wouldn't have wasted my money to extend my dock if I didn't get that. ... I'm just saying that I paid the fine and did the extra 30 feet because it got me 4 or 5 more inches of depth. The natural variation of bottom depths, as described by Mr. Tomasi, reveals the fallacy of basing determinations of navigability on small changes in depth measured by inches that can be counted on one hand, and the folly of trading clearance in feet for clearance in inches. Respondents argue that Petitioners should just be satisfied with smaller boats, or plan their outings to correspond to the tides,14 or trim their motors up to the point they may lose control,15 or carefully thread their way through slightly and almost imperceptively deeper areas on the shoal, all while avoiding collision with the Lot 18 Dock16 -- none of which would guarantee that they would not ground their vessels. Meanwhile, DEP proposes to allow Mr. Kent, who already had deep water access to Doctors 14 Mr. Tomasi testified that due to the likelihood of hitting bottom while crossing the shoal at low tide, Petitioners would have to pick the times for boating based on the tides, both coming and going. If they went out at a falling tide, they would have to wait until the tide started coming in to get back. Mr. Tomasi credibly and correctly opined that safe navigation “shouldn't be restricted to tides nor should you be restricted to a moon cycle.” 15 Mr. Hudson is an experienced boater, and credibly explained that to “trim up” a motor on a boat causes navigation to become more “challenging,” and that “with the propeller pushing water behind you, you lose a certain percentage of control or navigation.” Mr. Tomasi echoed that observation. Their testimony is credited. Lake via the boat access channel, to maximize his ability to have more and bigger boats, to the detriment of Petitioners and anyone else desiring to safely access the western canal. Petitioners have not sought permission to recreate in unusually large vessels or vessels not suitable for the area. They are simply asking to be able to safely navigate to and from their homes in boats six to eight feet smaller than Mr. Kent’s 32-footer, i.e. generally the size of his spare. This case is not one in which Petitioners are requesting that Mr. Kent relinquish his riparian right of navigation so that they can have larger vessels, or vessels inconsistent with normal family recreation. Rather, it is Mr. Kent’s desire to have larger and more vessels that has created this dispute. The evidence is clear that Mr. Kent had -- and has -- an unrestricted ability to navigate to and from Lot 18 via the boat access channel. Thus, although the Lot 18 Dock is a clear impairment of Petitioner’s rights to navigation, the denial of the permit and Letter of Consent would create no impairment of Mr. Kent’s right to navigation, and in no way would constitute an unreasonable infringement on Mr. Kent’s riparian rights. As a result of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, the boat access channel, a marked, customarily used, and validly permitted and constructed navigation channel, for which mitigation credits were purchased and severance fees were paid to the state, has been entirely severed with seemingly no concern for the adverse effects on navigation suffered by the persons for whom the ability to safely navigate was intended. The position espoused by Respondents in this case simply creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary impediment to navigation, violating both the plain- language of, and the public policy behind DEP’s ERP rules, and the BTIITF’s sovereignty lands authority. 16 Winds or seas can push a boat around, a situation that is exacerbated when the motor is trimmed up. Therefore, one would generally not want to get close to the Lot 18 Dock, or any Letter of Consent Rule 18-21.004(7)(g) provides that “[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard.” As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence in this proceeding firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock has created a navigational hazard by severing the permitted, marked, and customarily used boat access channel, thus, forcing Petitioners and other persons wanting to use the waters in the area to cross the shallow shoal, which is both unsafe and unnecessary. Ms. Mann testified that, in determining whether the Lot 18 Dock is the “minimum size” necessary, “we had taken that to look at the other docks in the area, and if he is on average with those other docks, then we consider it minimum size for that area.” However, the definition of a “minimum size dock or pier” in BTIITF rule 18-21.003(39) includes a comparison to other permitted docks as but one factor for consideration. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: “Minimum-size dock or pier” means a dock or pier that is the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming based on consideration of the immediate area’s physical and natural characteristics, customary recreational and navigational practices, and docks and piers previously authorized under this chapter. The evidence in this case firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock is not “the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming.” Mr. Kent had reasonable access to the water for navigating by using the boat access channel, and could have used any vessel with a draft of six feet or less from a shoreline dock as permitted by the Corps in 2003. The Lot 18 Dock did not take into consideration the area’s customary recreational and navigational practices, which previously relied on the boat access channel. Other previously authorized docks in the dock, with the potential to be pushed into the dock, damaging the boat, the dock, or both. area are not appropriate comparators because none have access to the boat access channel, and none encroach into and sever a permitted navigational channel, as does the Lot 18 Dock. The Lot 18 Dock is not, as a factual matter, a “minimum size dock or pier.” The Lot 18 Dock preempts substantially more sovereignty submerged lands than necessary for Mr. Kent to wharf out to four feet of navigable water. Environmental Issues Petitioners argue that substantial resources, predominantly seagrasses, exist in the area along the shoal, which seagrasses would be churned and scoured by vessels navigating across the shoal, and that the Lot 18 Dock is, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Since 1994, submerged vegetation has declined in Doctors Lake as a result of drought, invasive species, and hurricanes, particularly those in 2017 and 2018. DEP notified the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FFWCC”) of the Lot 18 Dock application. DEP did not receive comments from FFWCC within 30 days, which generally indicates that it did not have objections. See § 20.331(10), Fla. Stat. The response, if any, from DACS was not disclosed. On June 8, 2020, DEP conducted a limited environmental survey of the shoal area adjacent to the Lot 18 Dock and in front of the western canal. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there is plant or animal life in the area, if the shoal area is of any environmental importance, and if it contains any endangered or protected species. Nine samples were taken at various locations along the “top” of the shoal, including dredge samples, a dip net sample, and one Shelby core sample. All were taken from a boat. The DEP sampling revealed that the substrate consists mostly of sand, with less than 2 percent muck or organic material mixed in or on top. There was little animal or plant life, except for some juvenile clams of unknown species that appeared in several of the samples. There was one sample with two small plant fragments, but it was not known whether they rooted in the bottom or if they drifted in. Mr. Durden testified that “[t]here certainly was no substantial amount of vegetation found anywhere.” There were no endangered or protected species. DEP concluded that the shoal is of low environmental value and suitable for authorization for a permit. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Estes conducted a study of the shoal area to determine if there was a presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the area. He was there less than a half an hour. He generally concentrated his study area to the shallower area of the shoal closer to the mouth of the western canal from the 2’9” to 3’3” readings as depicted on Joint Exhibit 10. He did not pay much attention to the area around the Lot 18 Dock. Mr. Estes found a “very sparse coverage” of eelgrass, which is a species common in Doctors Lake. He also found some clams between 4 and 5 centimeters on average, which he believed to be adults. Mr. Estes was not able to opine whether the clams were important to a blue crab fishery in the area since it was outside of the scope of his study. Mr. Estes could not state that the area was of any current ecological significance. Rather, his testimony was limited to an opinion that conditions at the site were suitable for reestablishment of eelgrass. He believed that boats crossing the shoal could leave “prop scars” which would interfere with submerged vegetation recruiting back into those areas. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Lot 18 Dock, or navigation across the shoal, will interfere with the current environmental functions of the area, will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or will adversely affect fishing and recreation rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying an environmental resource permit for the Lot 18 Dock, whether it be the revised general permit authorized in the December 6, 2019, Consent Order or an individual ERP; denying the November 19, 2019, Letter of Consent or other form of state lands authorization for the Lot 18 Dock; and requiring measures to reestablish the boat access channel and Petitioners’ rights of navigation in recognition of their riparian rights of navigation and the valid St. Johns River Water Management District Permit No 40-019- 86850-2, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Zachary Roth, Esquire Ansbacher Law Suite 100 8818 Goodby's Executive Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32217 (eServed) Andrew T. Kent 2059 Castle Point Court Fleming Island, Florida 32003 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issue here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, to construct a boat dock of approximately 800 square feet, included in that dimension is a boat house. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioner, Louise C. Stone, has opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, Louise E. Stone's petition and request for formal proceedings to consider the propriety of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation's granting of an environmental permit to Raymond B. Spangler. This petition was filed after the Petitioner had received the Department of Environmental Regulation's Notice of Intent to Grant the permit. That notice was dated July 10, 1979, and a copy of that notice has been received into evidence as Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 5. The Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation opted to have the Division of Administrative Hearings consider this case and on November 5, 1979, a formal hearing was held before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner is an adjacent landowner to the Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, with property located on Lake Minneola. The applicant's project is located in the northwest corner of his property and is as far removed from the common property line with the Petitioner as is possible without violating setback lines. The Petitioner's property is located to the southeast of the project. The project as now contemplated calls for the construction of a boat deck and boat house with dimensions of approximately 800 square feet. The details of this construction may be found in a copy of the Application for Permit which is the Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The boat house and boat dock would be constructed on Lake Minneola, Lake City, Florida, near the town of Clermont, Florida. Lake Minneola is a navigable waterway and the boat dock and boat house would extend into the navigable water body. The discussion of the project as found in the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 is an accurate depiction with the exception that the dock will have an increase in length from the original proposal of 70 feet to a new proposal of some 80 to 84 feet. Nonetheless, with the optimum extension, the amount of square footage still closely approximates the initially requested 800-square-foot amount. The reason for the change is due to the rise in the water level of the lake causing the mean high water line to be further landward than was the case at the time the permit was first applied for. The additional extension of the dock is necessary to allow for dry access to the water and to reach the open waterway beyond the growth of maidencane grass (Panicum Hemitomon) near the shoreline. In keeping with allowed exemptions found in Section 403.813, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4.04, Florida Administrative Code, 500 square feet of the deck has been constructed and this portion of the dock as constructed may be seen in the Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, which is a photograph of the partially completed dock. Other photographs of the partially completed dock and the surrounding area of the lake showing the adjacent property may be found as Respondent, Spangler's Exhibits 5 through 9. The Respondent, Spangler's Exhibit No. 4, a composite which was admitted into evidence, is a series of photographs and an overlay which by scale shows a view of the completed dock and a depiction of the boat house when completed. The dock, when completed, will be constituted of a four-foot walkway extending approximately 80 to 84 feet into the water, intersecting at right angles at the terminus of the dock and forming a "T" shape. The boat house would be located adjacent to the walkway leading to the deck terminus. The dimensions of the covered boat house would be 25 feet by 14 feet. The depth of the water in the lake at the location of the continuing dock construction is sufficiently deep to allow the construction of the dock without the necessity of dredging. There is an extensive grassy community mostly constituted of maidencane (Panicum Hemitomon) and although some of the grassy community has been removed during the construction phase of the project, the denuded area may be easily reconstituted and the applicant has expressed his intent to achieve this end as a means to avoid further erosion which has started to occur at the site. None of the erosion which has occurred has interfered with the property of neighboring landowners. The impact of the continued construction in its affect on water quality would be inconsequential. Furthermore, the construction as now completed and as contemplated does not and would not constitute a hazard to navigation, nor interfere with and cause a danger to participants in water sports and related activities that take place on Lake Minneola. When the project is completed the aquatic vegetation can be expected to return and to remain as a viable wetland community. This is due to the fact that the amount of water surface covered by the project is slight and there is sufficient sunlight to support the aquatic vegetation even in the shaded areas. During the construction phase the amount of turbidity caused by the construction has been de minimis, and will be, in view of the fact that the bottom of the lake is a sand base which settles out quickly. This settling effect was seen by the project evaluator, James Morgan, Department of Environmental Regulation, when he toured the site of the construction and saw Respondent Spangler placing pilings. Morgan noted that the turbidity involved was of a short duration. The project will not interfere with fish and wildlife either in their day-to-day activities or in their propagation. None of the standards pertaining to water quality as found in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, will be violated by the project. The project will not be an unreasonable obstruction to the view of adjoining riparian owners and the applicant does not intend to use the boat house as a dwelling. When the project was first reviewed by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, that agency notified the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the Department of Pollution Control of Lake County, Florida. None of these agencies have made known any objection to the project and the Department of Pollution Control of Lake County has specifically indicated their lack of opposition by written comment, a copy of which may be found as the Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Applicant/Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, be allowed to conclude the construction of the boat deck and boat house as contemplated by the application of May 11, 1979, with the addendum that the dock length be extended to 80 feet to 84 feet as necessary; with the proviso that the applicant ensure that the grassy community be returned to its pristine condition in the area of his project, to prohibit further erosion and that these results be accomplished by the issuance of a permit pursuant to the conditions as outlined. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire Raymond B. Spangler 408 East Fifth Avenue Route 3, Box 319 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Clermont, Florida 32711 Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are seeking a permit to cut a channel from a boat basin to the Caloosahatchee River. The basin, which has been constructed, is located approximately forty to sixty feet inland from the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioners are also seeking a permit to operate the proposed basin. The basin would serve as a recreational facility for a trailer park. The proposed basin has dimensions of approximately 140 feet by 148 feet. It is surrounded by a concrete seawall. The basin would provide facilities for approximately 20 boats no larger than twenty-two feet in length. The trailer park is located across the street from the river and basin. The street is approximately 600 feet from the river. Sewage treatment and water treatment plants for the trailer park are located in the corners of the park farthest from the river. The basin is surrounded by vegetation. All water going into the basin would be filtered through grass. The project is located approximately one mile east of the City of Alva, fourteen miles from the City of Tice, and seventeen miles from the City of Ft. Myers. The basin is eight and one-half miles up river from Lee County's pumping stations, which are used to pump water from the river to wells which augment the county's water supply. The Caloosahatchee River was channelized approximately twenty years ago. It no longer follows a natural course. The river is a part of the Cross Florida system connecting with Lake Okeechobee. The proposed boat basin would not enhance the waters of the Caloosahatchee River. The project could reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution unless rules and regulations, which Petitioners have adopted, are scrupulously followed. These rules and regulations are set out in Figure 3 attached to Petitioner's Exhibit 7. If the rules and regulations are followed, the basin would not be a source of pollutants. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. If the rules and regulations are not followed then there is a likelihood that the basin will be a source of pollutants, and that the pollutants would be discharged into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioners do not object to having the proposed rules and regulations made a part and a condition of any permits issued by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Pine Island Properties, Ltd., (Petitioner) owns a residential development project identified as "Pelican Inlet" located on Pine Island, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner seeks a permit to fill 0.78 acres of wetlands to construct the project. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is responsible for reviewing permit applications under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and related administrative rules. The Department file number for this application is 362004755. The Pelican Inlet project is located in Lee County, Florida, Sections 4 and 9, Township 45 South, Range 25 East. The project impact site is immediately adjacent to "Forty Acre Bay/Bay 36" (bay) which is a Class II Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. There are no other developments on the bay. Access from Pelican Inlet to Pine Island Sound is via the bay. Pine Island Sound is a popularly used water body, with substantial fishing and recreational use. The Pelican Inlet development fronts a man-made canal which runs generally east-west. The canal is between two to ten feet deep. The Petitioner did not construct the canal. It appears that during the dredging of the canal, spoil was deposited along the canal banks, resulting in an upland area in the midst of the wetlands. The spoil is vegetated by Australian pine. The elevation of the property drops approximately 1.5 feet where the higher spoil abuts the wetlands. The Petitioner owns only the north half of the canal. Other parties not involved in this application own the south half of the canal. According to the Petitioner, the south half owners are not interested in assisting in the Petitioner's project. Extensive mangrove growth exists immediately north and south of the project impact area. Immediately along the banks of the canal are red, black, and white mangroves. At the east end of the canal is a dense growth of mature black mangroves. Further to the east lie undeveloped uplands vegetated with slash pine and saw palmetto. Although there has been some trash dumping in the area, the mangroves to be impacted by the proposed development are part of a high quality, functioning, healthy, and productive wetlands system. The area currently provides broad water quality benefits and wildlife habitat. The north part of the impacted wetlands area contained a dirt road. Exotic vegetation, including Brazilian pepper Australian pine and Melaleuca, has invaded the trail area. Away from the road, the wetlands are dominated by buttonwood, seashore dropseed, beach carpet, salt grass, needlerush, and leather fern. The Western end of the canal connects to the bay. Water depths in the bay average approximately 1.5 feet deep, but vary significantly. The bay bottom is composed of fine organic mud. There is evidence of damage caused by boat propellers in some parts of the bay. The bay is used by species of fish, snails, mollusks, crabs and birds and is regarded as a productive marine habitat. Within the development, the Petitioner seeks to locate a total of 23 single family homes. Fourteen of the 23 homes will be located directly along the canal. Of these 14, eight will require placement of fill in the adjacent mangroves; two others are entirely within the mature mangrove wetlands. The remaining nine houses would be placed in the area east of the canal. Within the wetlands and uplands portion of the property, the development will include the 23 houses, driveways, access roads, sewer treatment plant, spreader swale and retention area. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the parties engaged in an extensive dialogue in an attempt to reach a resolution of the matter. The issues raised by the Department essentially centered on two general issues, minimization and mitigation of the wetlands lost through fill and resolution of the anticipated secondary impacts of the project. The parties appear to have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. At the hearing, there was minimal evidence and testimony related to the wetlands mitigation issues. Based on the apparent lack of conflict related to the wetlands loss mitigation, this Recommended Order is directed towards the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. On August 21, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application for permit/water quality certification with the agency. On October 28, 1991, the Department conducted a field appraisal of the project. Based on the appraisal, the Department determined that the project was unpermittable as proposed in the application. On December 24, 1991, the Department forwarded to the Petitioner a copy of the site inspection report. In the report, the Department identifies a number of concerns related to the expected environmental impact of the project. Thereafter, the parties began an extensive dialogue regarding the project. On March 12, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The parties continued to discuss mitigation, and several extensions to the deadline for filing an administrative hearing request were granted by the Department. There is no dispute regarding timeliness of the request for hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial indicates that the Department's concerns center on the potential for turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The Notice of Permit Denial further identifies concerns related to the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. Such impacts include boat docks in the canal resulting in an increase in the intensity of boating activity in the Bay. The Notice also addresses the precedential impact of permitting this project as it relates to other properties similarly situated, specifically, the property on the south side of the Canal. The expected increases in boat traffic will result in turbidity and damage to the bay bottom through prop dredging, in turn causing injury to the marine habitat's sea grasses and benthic organisms. During the ongoing dialogue with the Department, the Petitioner submitted a mitigation plan. In the Department's letter of June 26, 1992, related to its review of the plan, the Department notes that the proposal failed to address the anticipated impact of boat users on the shallow bay adjacent to the canal. Paragraph #23 of the letter states as follows: Please be advised that the submitted proposal does not adequately address the secondary impacts of the proposed development. There is still a high potential for boat use within the adjacent shallow bay which will significantly degrade this portion of the aquatic preserve, additional boating pressure could also result in requests for dredging a channel within this bay....Before a permit can be issued all of these impacts need to be addressed. One possible way to address these would be to provide easements over adjacent wetlands and the canal that specifically prohibit dock construction...and/or to fill in a portion of the canal to prevent large boats from utilizing the area. In a letter of July 29, 1992 in response to the Department's earlier transmittal, the Petitioner stated: Boat access to coastal waters of Lee is a very important aspect of this project, however only two of the twenty-four lots have direct private property access to the canal and these are lots 1 and 18. Only lot 1 has both canal and natural water frontage. The potential for secondary wetland impacts related to permitting of this project are real and are also a concern of the applicant. As to the issue of boat docks, the Petitioner stated: Pine Island Properties, Limited, the owner of the project, is not proposing to permit or construct any boat docks within the project boundary. Each lot owner must, if they wish to, make application through appropriate state and federal agencies for a boat dock. As to the matter of the shallow adjacent bay, the Petitioner stated: The existing water depths in the adjacent bay system already by itself mandates and places limits on access by large boats, ones with a deeper draft. Local knowledge of both bottom topography as well as tidal conditions and times is necessary for one to travel through these back bay areas. The applicant agrees to place reasonable size, i.e., draft, restrictions on boats allowed into and out of the project. The draft limit restriction for boats would be 24 inches. In additional all boats with engines larger than 35 horsepower would be required to have hydraulic motor/outdrive lifts capable of allowing adjustments in the depth of the operation of the propeller. The applicant also accepts responsibility of placing appropriate depth markers from the western end (exist) (sic) of the unnamed canal to the "between island" passage approximately 750 feet directly to the west. Placement of markers would identify the preferred travel route and inform boaters, through placement of signs, that they are in an aquatic preserve and caution them about damage to bottom of the bay if propellers are set to (sic) deep. By Department letter of September 21, 1992, the Department noted continuing concerns with the impacts of the project. In relevant part, the letter states, "[T]he Department still lacks reasonable assurance that the project's impacts will be offset. Also, you have not yet demonstrated to the Department's satisfaction that the project will be clearly in the public interest." The Department's September 21 letter addresses remaining questions about the wetlands fill area, as well as canal use restrictions. Specifically as to the canal issue, the letter states: Your proposal to place a draft restriction of 24" on boats using the canal to protect adjacent waters which are 18" deep is not acceptable. A deed restriction prohibiting property owners from using or mooring motorized vessels in the canal would be more acceptable....A conservation easement could also prohibit the construction of docks and/or the mooring of motorized vessels on the shoreline by the present owners or by potential future owners such as a homeowners association. Based on the Department's assertion that the shallow bay could not accommodate boat traffic related to the development, the Petitioner conducted a survey of existing water depths in the vicinity of the canal. In its October 28, 1992 letter in response to the Department, the Petitioner responded as follows: In general there is sufficient water for shallow draft motor driven vessels, however local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound. Evidence of prop scars...provides a longlasting record of past damage to the turtle grass beds by (sic) without proper boat handling skills and knowledge. Sizing of boat draft and the requirement that all boats possess hydraulically adjustable outboards units or if inboard drive units then the outdrives must be adjustable is a must. During lower tidal phases, e.g., mean low water, water levels can be expected to drop another foot which would result in water depth ranges of about 17 to 30 inches, definitly (sic) a problem for boats with a hull draft of 18 inches regardless of what angle the drive unit is positioned. Placement of informational signs as well as placement of channel marks would reduce hull and drive unit impacts to the adjacent bay bottom. In concluding the October 28 letter, the Petitioner makes the following recommendations: Recommendations for consideration: Boats limited to hull drafts of 20 inches. All boats required to have adjustable power units. Channel markers required from the Pelican Inlet canal mouth through to a point midway between the islands and Cork Island. This is approximately 2,800 feet west of the canal mouth. These markers would be spaced, approximately 150 feet apart, on-center,. (sic) Thus under southflorida's (sic) winter foggy conditions or after dark ease of marker detection/direction would be a useful aid to navigation. Informational signs should be installed at "entry points" such as the canal mouth, the between-island pass and between the island headlands. These should inform the boater of the environmental sensitivity, the shallow water conditions, the existence of grass beds and requirement of a slow speed, "no wake" zones. Monitoring of bentic (sic) habitats over the first five years would also determine if the above conditions are effective at protecting the coastal habitats. By Department letter of December 17, 1992, the Department again addressed continuing concern with the impact of the project. Paragraph 14 of the letter states: Thank you for the water depth report. As the report states,"...local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Since it would be extremely difficult to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that all three of these conditions will be present during motorized vehicle operations originating on-site, other assurance that impacts will not occur and degrade the Outstanding Florida waterbody must be provided. As previously stated, legally binding agreements regarding draft and other restrictions may be difficult to enforce. Monitoring of an activity's impacts is only useful if there is some recourse to eliminate or reduce any impacts revealed by monitoring. The submitted report reinforces the Department's position that reasonable assurance, beyond that already proposed, must be provided that boat traffic originating from the project's canal will not adversely impact the adjacent shallow waters. Such assurance could include, but would not be limited to, a mnechanical or physical draft restrictor in the canal, an agreement not to seek permits to expand the existing canal, and authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. Please note that additional assurance beyond these may also be required. Paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17, letter states: Although not proposed as part of this application, construction of boat docks in the canal is a secondary impact which could be reasonably expected to occur as a result of issuing a permit for the proposed activities. Please provide reasonable assurance that construction of docks in the canal and subsequent mooring of boats will not contribute to a degradation of water quality below State water quality standards in the canal and in the adjacent waters. By letter of February 1, 1993, the Petitioner responded to paragraph 14 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant does agree not to seek permits to expand the existing channel and will seek authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. In a twenty page letter, dated July 29, 1992, also answering questions of the FDER, Kathleen Parker Greenwood, the applicant stated that he was in agreement as to the placement of restrictions on the draft of boats allowed into and out of the project. This draft limit was set at 24 inches. In addition boats having engines larger that 35 horsepower, would have to have a hydraulic motor/outdrive lift, this to allow adjustments in the depth of propeller operation when operating in or during low water conditions. The applicant may accept the proposal of placement of a draft restrictor at the mouth of the unnamed canal, however would like additional information regarding available designs. Are there any floating types, ones that could be moored permanently at the mouth of the project canal, and rise and fall with the tide, similar in concept to the method used to moor floating docks, i.e., a collar/ring freely moving up and down on a stationary piling? This would allow the setting of a uniform depth regardless of tidal or wind induced depth of water conditions. The Petitioner responded to paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant also does not want to degrade existing water quality and agrees to implement both design determined as well as behavioral directing programs to insure that this does not happen. The central issues are: a.) Oil and gas leaks and spills. b.) Leakage of the active chemicals found in anti-fouling bottom paints. c.) "Wolmerized" substances placed in marine piling which, over time, leak into the water column. d.) Shading of shoreline bottom communities due to the installation of docks with associated floating boats. and e.) Physical, one-time, impacts occurring during the installation of pilings and dolphines. The applicant, wishing to minimize potential onetime (sic) as well as cumulative impacts proposes the following: The applicant will attach to documents/lot sales contract a notice that clearly informs the prospective land owner of his/her responsibilities regarding the use and storage, handing and disposal of hazardous wastes, especially boat fuel and oil. This document will warn residents against the discharge overboard of bilge water known to contain fuel/oil mixtures. Each dock will display, in a prominent mannor (sic), a sign with essentially the same warning. The Pelican Inlet property owner(s) will also develop, and have in place and operational, prior to any authorization for the construction of boad (sic) docks, an emergency response program designed to handle in-project fuel spells (sic). This program will include the storage of equipment suitable for emergency containment until, and if necessary, a local response can be made by the appropriate Lee County and/or state officials. Boats will be lifted, when not actively in use, via davits or elevating hoist platforms completely out of the water. This will minimize water/hull contact in the case of anti-fouling paints and bottom coatings. Dock pilings and dolphines will utilize non-toxic structural components, wolmerized and other petroleum based substances will not be allowed to come in contact with the water column. Such Structural members as concrete or PVC or other known non-toxic items will be utilized for all vertical supports. Dock access platforms/boardwalks will be minimized, this in order to reduce potential shading. Consideration will be given to the use of translucent "boards" now on the construction market, this again to further minimize shading. By Department letter of February 15, 1993, the Department addressed continuing and additional concerns related to project impact. Paragraph 9 of the letter states: Regarding the issue of boat access from the canal out to Pine Island Sound, it should be noted that [the Petitioner agent's] access study was done at a time when the water elevation was provided as +1.91' NGVD. The mean high water elevation, as provided, is +1.47' NGVD. Thus is appears that at mean high water, there will be a little more than 5 inches less water that what was present during that study. The mean low water elevation provided is -1.2' NGVD which seems low. However, using this figure, at mean low water there will be 3' less water between the canal and the sound. Using a more reasonable tidal range of approximately 1', there would still be a difference of almost 1.5' between the observed and the low water levels, yielding lowest depths of approximately 3" in segment 1, the unvegetated areas, 10" in segment 2, where turtle grass and shoal grass...exist within the "channel", and 24" or greater out in the sound (along the sampled channel). The Department's own informal depth survey, taken during a full moon low tide, showed water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2. Most importantly, many of the shallow areas in segment 2 showed dense seagrass growth, especially out by the "island headlands", where no channel exists and where prop scarring of the grassbeds already appears to be a major problem. Also, the shallowest area, segment 1, where turbidity would be expected to occur almost every time a boat went through until the channel was prop dredged, was observed to be a highly productive and diverse area, despite the fact that it is unvegetated. Other concerns which this site visit brought up include the potential for increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path. Reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound will not cause violations of water quality, including turbidity and loss of diversity, and loss of non-mitigable wetland resources, seagrass beds, has not been provided. Without this, a permit may still not be issued for this project. By response dated April 11, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's December 17 letter. As to the conflicting high water calculations, the Petitioner offered a further refinement of the figures and noted: Both of the above are relatively minor corrections and any reasonable person would still agree that water depths along the recommended boating channel corridor are, at best, minimal. Only one with local knowledge and possessing common boating skills and sense would be able to navigate the passage without disruption or damage to the bottom habitat. As to the application of a 1' "tidal range," the Petitioner suggests that the Department meant to identify the figure as the range below mean sea level. Citing to 1993 tidal tables, the Petitioner recalculated the water depths and opined that the lowest depth in segment 1 would be 6.7", in segment 2 would be 21.1" and in segment 3 would be over 30". The Petitioner noted that the calculations did not account for neap or spring tides, periods of even lower water conditions. As to the Department's informal depth survey showing water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2, the response states "[t]hese value ranges and conclusion seem reasonable to the applicant. Only after a series of repeated depth measurements have been taken over a variety of tidal and weather conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction) would a more detailed analysis be available. " As to the Department's statement concern for potential increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path, the Petitioner responded as follows: The applicant previously agreed to a mandatory "no wake, slow speed" zone condition within segments I, II, and III out past the western most headlands to a position due north of Cork Island. Signs along the proposed boat corridor would notify boaters of this and other environmentally related restrictions. Disturbances to in place bird rookeries during the nesting season are of concern in southwest Florida. Parents frightened off active nests do greatly decrease the success for fledging of subadult birds. Generally rookeries occur on islands rather than headlands, thus the applicant would committ (sic) to a vigerous (sic) environmental sensitivity education program directed towards project initiated boaters in order to gain citizen appreciation, support and consideration for island areas of nesting wading birds. Part of the on-going monitoring that the applicant commits to would also track near-shore rookeries in the vacinity (sic) of the proposed boat traffic corridor. As to the Department's statement that reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound would not cause violations of water quality had not been provided, the Petitioner responded as follows: The issue and standard, reasonable assurance, is very difficult to meet, however the applicants proposed residential project design is sensitive to on-site and near shore environmental conditions in the following mannor (sic): The applicant is aware that without full cooperation,, support, appreciation and participation by the future project resident boat operators there will defintly (sic) be negative impacts to the tidally related natural resource base. The natural resource setting is the major selling point for prospective owners and its continued health and sustainability is a good business practice Toward these ends the applicant clearly committs (sic) to: The marking and maintaining of a path along which all boat traffic must follow when exiting or entering the near-shore boat corridor lane. Placement and maintaining of a series of informational "No Wake, Slow Speed" signs along the required boat corridor out to just north of Cork Island. A mandatory requirement stating that all resident owned boats, proposed to enter and exit the site will: Be restricted to a maximum hull draft of 20 inches. Will possess adjustable hydraulic motor/shaft outdrive lifts. Predevelopment base-line and post development monitoring of the conditions and any changes, of the benthic habitats along and adjacent (250' on either side of the centerline) to the proposed boat corridor. This monitoring, with quarterly reports, will continue for five consecutive years. By letter dated May 19, 1993, the Department replied in relevant part to the Petitioner's response as follows: ...The second issue is that of navigable access from the canal to Pine Island Sound. The one specific point to be made here is that a proposed draft restriction of 20" to cross an area as shallow as 6.7" (using your figures) at mean low water is not acceptable as this would cause scarring even when a motor was not in use. More general concerns, as previously discussed, involve whether or not placement of no wake signs, deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts, and monitoring to document boating impacts on adjacent resources provide reasonable assurance that impacts will not occur, and if they do occur, they can be offset. Currently, the Department's view is that only by strict legal (e.g., conservation easement) and physical (e.g., pilings at the end of the canal) measures can impacts to the adjacent OFW resources be avoided or minimized. If there is new information concerning this aspect of this project which demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that there will not be impacts associated with boat traffic or that these impacts can be offset, then please submit such, since this is not considered a closed issue. " By letter dated June 2, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's May 19 letter. Paragraph 2 of the response states: Our client has agreed to put his half of the canal in a conservation easement without limiting the future construction of boat docks and the ability to obtain a permit for dredging maintenance of the canal. Also, he agreed to drive draft restricting pilings at the west end of the canal. In order to do this, our client is trying to get in touch with the owner of the south half of the existing canal. The construction of these pilings will depend on the adjacent lot owner's response. If required the "No Wake" sign will be installed. Deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts will be provided." The adjacent lot owner is not cooperative with the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that permitting of this project will lead to increased boat traffic in the shallow bay, resulting in prop scarring of the bay bottom, erosion of adjacent shoreline, and damage to the wildlife habitat provided therein. The use of a draft restrictor appears to be integral to the Department and to the Petitioner's ability to protect the shallow bay from damage. Although discussed frequently, the Petitioner provided no detailed draft restrictor design until immediately prior to the hearing. The draft restrictor would limit boat passage in or out of the canal mouth unless the water depth was sufficient to prevent harm to the bay bottom. The greater evidence fails to establish that a draft restrictor placed at the opening to the canal into the shallow bay is sufficient to prevent damage to the bay habitat. Placement of a restrictor only at the mouth of the canal provides no protection to the marine resource once boaters exit the canal and are in the bay. The proposed marking of a "channel" which is marginally sufficient to permit access to deeper waters, fails to protect the resource. A draft restrictor at the canal mouth further provides no protection against damage caused by boaters returning from deeper waters who will be able to travel through the shallow bay before perhaps discovering at the canal mouth that the water is too shallow to permit passage over the restrictor. It is reasonable to assume at that point, the bay will have been damaged by the excessive draft. It is also reasonable to assume that the damage would be exacerbated by the boater who, unable to enter the canal, either exits the too shallow bay, or remains until the water rises sufficiently to permit passage over the restrictor. The evidence fails to establish that it is possible to police the users of the bay to provide that due care is used to prevent bay damage. The Petitioner asserts that the bay is already being used and damaged by other boaters. Even if correct, this project must meet the applicable criteria to be permitted. As set forth herein, the criteria are not met. Based on the evidence and on consideration and balancing of the following criteria, the project is not clearly in and is contrary to the public interest: WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS-- The Department does not assert that the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, INCLUDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, OR THEIR HABITATS-- The evidence establishes that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Pine Island Sound provides habitat for endangered species including manatees, roseate spoonbills, and wood storks. Additionally, bald eagles have been seen in the project site and Pine Island Sound. The direct loss of wetland habitat resulting from this project will adversely affect the conservation of such species. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The increased boat traffic which may reasonably be expected to result from award of the permit sought will cause damage to the shallow bay waters and result in harm to the health and function of the bay habitat. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NAVIGATION OR THE FLOW OF WATER OR CAUSE HARMFUL EROSION OR SHOALING-- The Notice of Permit Denial suggests a likelihood of turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The evidence establishes that the parties have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. The Department does not currently assert that the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project will increase travel through the shallow bay to adjacent waters by boaters residing in the project. The prop dredging which will occur in the shallow water will result in harmful erosion of the bay bottom. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FISHING OR RECREATIONAL VALUES OR MARINE PRODUCTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT-- The project will likely result in an increase in the number of boaters utilizing the bay and adjacent waters. The turbidity caused by prop dredging in the bay will degrade the water quality and adversely affect the productivity of the impacted marine resource, in turn reducing the fishing values in the vicinity of the project. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL BE OF A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT NATURE-- The project will cause a permanent alteration to the existing condition of the property and will cause a continuing adverse impact to the affected area. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT OR WILL ENHANCE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 267.061-- The Department does not assert that this project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. THE CURRENT CONDITION AND RELATIVE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS BEING PERFORMED BY AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY-- The current condition and relative values of the functions being performed in the affected areas will be adversely affected by the granting of this application. The project will result in an adverse impact to and degradation of an Outstanding Florida Water. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The evidence establishes that adverse secondary and cumulative impacts will result from permitting this project. Aside from the adverse affect of increased boating related to residents of the development, it is reasonable to expect that similarly-situated applicants could seek permits under these circumstances, resulting in additional boating activity and related damage to an Outstanding Florida Waterbody.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying the application of Pine Island Properties, Ltd., for a water quality certification permit in DEP File No. 362004755. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2713 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. Rejected, unnecessary. 12. Rejected. Evidence is insufficient to determine whether use of bay by public is "regular." Rejected. The map attached to the application identifies 23 homesites. The Notice of Permit Denial references 23 homesites. Petitioner's exhibit 92 is a set of drawings which indicate 24 homesites, however it is unclear as to why the lots were replatted. Rejected as to reference to South Florida Water Management District, irrelevant. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project is contrary to public interest. Rejected, argumentative, subordinate. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was the first detailed drawing of the draft restrictor. 32-33. Rejected, irrelevant as to whether project meets permitting criteria. 37-38. Rejected, unnecessary. 39-40. Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that filling in the canal is the "only solution" suggested by the Department. 42. Rejected as to assertion that the Department did not question the conclusion or accuracy of the Petitioner's water depth study, contrary to evidence including the Department's site visit. The conclusion to which the Department agreed is that "local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The Department noted in correspondence that monitoring would not protect the resource. 46-48. Rejected The easement has not been executed or recorded. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Nothing in the correspondence indicates that all other issues have been resolved. Rejected, immaterial. 56. Rejected, irrelevant. The easement has not been executed or recorded. 57-58. Rejected, immaterial. 60-61. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. The testimony of the cited witness is not credited. 62. Rejected, immaterial. Respondent The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. There is no citation to record to support the recalculation. 23. Rejected, contrary to evidence which establishes that the Notice of Permit Denial was issued on March 12, 1992. 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, Florida 32399-2400 Harry Blair, Esquire BLAIR & BLAIR, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730
The Issue Whether Southern Hy Power Corporation (Hy Power) has provided reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, or other information, that its proposed hydroelectric facility will comply with the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) statutes and rules of Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Wetland Resource Management permit (WRM)/water quality certification statutes and rules of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation the parties agreed to the following description of the parties and the project: PARTIES: The Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) is a government agency in the State of Florida existing by virtue of Section 20.255, Florida Statutes, and operating pursuant to Chapters 253, 373, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 62, Florida Administrative Code. Under an interagency agreement with SWFWMD, the Department also implements Title 40D, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is located in Tallahassee, Florida, and it has a district office in Tampa, Florida, which district includes Levy County. Southern Hy Power Corporation is a Florida Corporation whose principal offices are located at 7008 Southwest 30th Way in Gainesville, Florida. Betty Berger is an interested party with a mailing address of Post Office Box 83, Inglis, Florida. The Campbells are an interested party with a mailing address of 245 Palm Street, Inglis, Florida. Hy Power applied on August 31, 1993, to the Department for a WRM permit/water quality certification to construct a hydroelectric facility on the Inglis By-Pass Channel. The project is located in Section 12, Township 17 South, Range 16 East, within the town of Inglis in Levy County. The facility consists of a powerhouse located on the south side of the channel measuring about 28 feet wide by 115 feet long, drawing water from the Inglis By-Pass Channel, passing it through a single-pit type turbine and discharging downstream of the Inglis By-Pass Spillway Dam. Hy Power applied on August 4, 1998, to the Department for a MSSW permit for the same proposed hydroelectric facility on the Inglis By-Pass Channel. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The project involves the construction of an intake structure, powerhouse, and tailrace on a 0.61-acre area located on the south side of the existing Inglis By-Pass Spillway. The facility will take advantage of the existing hydrostatic head that exists on either side of the Spillway Dam, to generate electricity. The powerhouse will be constructed below grade and will contain a single megawatt turbine and generating unit. The intake structure will divert flows from the upstream side of the Spillway Dam through the powerhouse and back into the By-Pass Channel. A small one-story control building and low profile substation will be constructed above grade within the boundaries of the project area. The hydroelectric project is considered to be a "Run of the River" type of facility because it can only use that water which flows down the existing channel. The geometry of the channel restricts flow to a certain amount, therefore the project cannot create or use flows above those that the By-Pass Channel can provide. The overall authority for control of water levels in Lake Rousseau and flow to the lower Withlacoochee River will remain with the DEP. Lake Rousseau was created in 1909 when the Inglis Dam was constructed across the Withlachoochee River for the purposes of hydroelectric generation. The dam impounds over 11 miles of the Withlachoochee River and forms a lake approximately 3,000 to 4,000 acres in size. Prior to construction of the Barge Canal, water released from the Inglis Dam would flow down the lower portion of the Withlachoochee River about 10 miles before entering into the Gulf of Mexico. In the mid to late 1960's the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) built a portion of the Cross Florida Barge Canal between the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Rousseau. The canal severed the Withlachoochee River downstream of the Inglis Dam causing its flow to be diverted into the Barge Canal and then into the Gulf. In order to maintain the flow of freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the lower segment of the River, the 8,900-foot long Inglis By- Pass Channel and Spillway were constructed. The resulting downstream flow ensures navigation in the lower portion of the River and sustains its freshwater and estuarine environment. The water level in Lake Rousseau is generally maintained at an elevation of 27.5 feet above mean sea level (msl) by a combination of the Inglis Dam, the Inglis Lock, which is located in the Barge Canal, and the By-Pass Channel Spillway. These water control features are known collectively as the Inglis Project Works. The water levels in the lower Withlachoochee River immediately to the west of the By-Pass spillway are close to sea level. The resulting head provides the potential energy needed to drive the proposed generator turbine. Under normal conditions the majority of water released from Lake Rousseau flows over the Spillway Dam into the lower segment of the River. According to the DEP Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT), the maximum capacity of the existing By-Pass Channel Spillway is 1,540 cubic feet per second. The hydroelectric project will divert whatever flow is allowed around the existing spillway through the turbine and back into the channel. When the Cross Florida Barge Canal project was cancelled in the 1990's, the ACOE transferred ownership of the property to the State of Florida Board of Trustees, who in turn has leased the property to the DEP for use as the Cross Florida Greenbelt State Recreation and Conservation Area. Management of this property, the control of river flow and lake levels, and operation of the Inglis Project Works are exercised by the DEP's OGT. The OGT utilizes a document entitled "Water Control Plan for Inglis Project Works," dated September 1994, as a guide to operating the structures. The Water Control Plan is incorporated as part of the MSSW intent to issue. On or about April 25, 1995, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees"), approved a request from Hy Power to sublease 0.61 acres of Greenway property at the project site for the purpose of providing electric power. The request was challenged by Berger and the Campbells, and resulted in an administrative hearing held on November 3, 1995. As a result of the hearing, Administrative Law Judge Larry Sartin entered a Recommended Order on July 12, 1996, that the Board enter an order approving execution by the DEP of the proposed sublease and dismissing the petition of Berger and the Campbells. The Recommended Order was approved by the Trustees in its entirety in a Final Order dated April 12, 1996 ("Final Order"). Berger v. Southern Hy Power Corporation et al., Case No. 95-3589. A copy of the Final Order is listed as an exhibit to this Stipulation, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained therein are adopted herein. As previously ruled by the undersigned, the previous Final Order is res judicata as to Petitioners in this case, who are collaterally estopped from challenging any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in the previous Final Order. Petitioners reserve the right to litigate issues of fact and law not addressed in the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law contained in that Final Order with regard to the permittability of this project under the WRM and MSSW permitting proposals, and to raise objections as to relevance to this proceedings of any of the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in the Final Order. On February 21, 1995, Hy Power filed application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a conduit exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Powers Act (FPA) for the proposed project. Petitioners and various other persons filed protests with FERC in opposition to the project. On April 21, 1997, FERC issued an Order Granting Conduit Exemption, a copy of which is listed as an exhibit to this Stipulation. Petitioners in this case are collaterally estopped from challenging any of the findings or conclusions contained in that Order Granting Conduit Exemption. Petitioners reserve the right to litigate issues of fact and law not addressed in the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law contained in that Order Granting Conduit Exemption with regard to the permittability of this project under the WRM and MSSW permitting proposals, and to raise objections as to relevance to this proceedings of any of the findings or conclusions in the Order Granting Conduit Exemption. FACTS ADDUCED AT HEARING OUTLINE OF PROJECT The proposed project calls for the construction of a water retention structure along the existing By-Pass spillway, the excavation of a large hole in which the powerhouse and turbine would be constructed "in-the-dry" south of the existing dam, and a millrace below the proposed project to return the water back into the existing water course. Conflicting testimony was received regarding the facts surrounding the construction of the project. These included: whether the proposed project will touch the existing wing walls of the existing dam; whether the water retention structure is a coffer dam; whether the proposed water retention structure will safely retain the water; whether the powerhouse and turbine have sufficient negative buoyancy to stay in the ground; whether the proposed excavation will weaken the existing dam; and whether the de-watering of the excavation site will adversely impact ground and surface water. PROJECT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING Engineering for the project was directed by witness Richard A. Volkin, a professional engineer and president and CEO of Engineering Company, Inc., based in Canton, Massachusetts. Mr. Volkin has extensive national and international experience in the design, management, and operation of hydroelectric facilities. Other engineers in Mr. Volkin’s firm worked on the project under Mr. Volkin’s direct supervision, including John May, who became registered as a professional engineer in Florida in order to sign and seal the engineering drawings for the project, which he initially did around 1994. Mr. May became ill and retired in 1998. Because of the length of time the application process has taken and the fact that Mr. May retired, there was a time while the application was pending, when Hy Power's design team was without a registered Florida engineer. When this was brought to the attention of Hy Power, Hy Power substituted Steven Crockett for Mr. May as the Florida-registered professional engineer of record for the project. DEP routinely accepts an applicant’s changing its engineer of record during the course of permit application or construction. Mr. Crockett is a civil and structural engineer who has considerable experience in preparing dam structural designs. Mr. Crockett independently reviewed and evaluated the engineering drawings for the project. Mr. Crockett resealed the drawings by using his drawn seal and signing the plans because his embossed seal was not readily available and time was of the essence. Mr. Crockett has advised DEP that he is now engineer of record for the project, using the appropriate DEP forms. Mr. Volkin’s firm performed all of the studies required by the various agencies, including a geotechnical study of the area, a 50-year analysis of water flow in and out of the Lake Rousseau regime, and water quality evaluations of water in the By-Pass Channel. The ACOE performed deep hole borings of the soils (approximately 36-40 feet below sea level) in the area of the project site to determine soil stabilization conditions at the site when they were constructing the Inglis Project Works. The soil conditions found can reasonably be expected to be similar today. Mr. Volkin’s company also took its own eight-foot deep surface core samples. The purpose of those samples was to verify the ACOE data. The new core samples verified the original core samples. Mr. Volkin also reviewed the ACOE’s engineering drawings developed from construction of the Spillway Dam. These show that the dam is founded on limestone bedding that has been stabilized with concrete. The hydroelectric facility will be constructed adjacent to and south of the dam structure and adjacent to and north of the barge canal. The same type of limestone bedrock is found in the area of the proposed construction. The facility design includes an intake channel on the upstream channel and a tailrace downstream. Those are the only structures that will be constructed next to the By-Pass Channel. The construction of the facility itself will be "in the dry." Hy Power will use coffer dams to seal off the construction site from the By-Pass Channel, so that there will not be water leakage from the Channel into the construction site. Water from the By-Pass Channel will enter the power plant when the coffer dams are lifted and the water is allowed to flow into the facility. The Petitioners presented the testimony of Bill Edwards, an individual with considerable experience in the construction of bridges, cofferdams, and similar concrete structures in aquatic and semi-aquatic conditions. Mr. Edwards is a former hard-hat diver who worked all over the world and worked in Florida for many years prior to his retirement. Based upon his experience and expertise in construction related to projects of this type, his testimony is credible and worthy of consideration. Mr. Edwards pointed out that if the proposed water retention structure did not touch the wing wall of the existing dam, it could not keep the water out and would not have the strength that it needed to retain the water. Hy Power’s witnesses explained that the retention structure would be set close enough to the existing wing wall that waterproofing materials could be placed between the two structures to keep the water out. Further, that the existing plans did not show interior bracing which would be included for structural strength and integrity. In sum, the retention structure will be in contact with existing dam’s wing wall, but will be free standing and not dependent upon the strength of the wing wall for its strength. Mr. Edwards pointed out that a cofferdam by definition has walls on all sides of the structure. The structure proposed by Hy Power did not have walls all the way around the proposed excavation. In rebuttal, Hy Power presented evidence that its plans were conceptual, design drawing and not construction plans. Hy Power represented that in actuality it would put as many walls as were necessary to keep the water out of the hole it intended to excavate. Trash racks will be constructed at the intake structures to protect aquatic life and make sure that trash and vegetation do not enter the intake structure or go down river. The trash rack bars will be two inches on center, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined as the appropriate size for the protection of fish. The turbine blades are "double regulated," and operate generally between 60 and 90 revolutions per minute. The design enables the turbine to operate at a constant speed to generate a consistent flow of electricity, notwithstanding the fact that the flow of the water may vary. The blade speed is not very fast, and the 2.5-meter blades provide a two to three-foot opening. This design acts to prevent fish mortality. There are four ways to shut off the flow of water through the proposed structure: close the pitch of the blades, close the wicket gates, allow the counter balance to the wicket gates to kick in and automatically close the gates, and close off the main gates. This is a fail safe system ("four level redundancy") designed to work upon any failure. Once water goes through the generator, its velocity is reduced to no greater than its intake rate which is a maximum of three feet per second. This prevents the water being discharged from the tailrace from causing erosion. If the head of water in the dam produces a flow exceeding three feet per second, it can be diverted over the other dams which will be functional. The power plant will be encased in concrete, except for a small access way that enables a person to go down a set of stairs to the plant. It will be a sealed, waterproof structure, as required by FERC and the ACOE. This will prevent penetration of groundwater, or flood waters in the event a massive flood overtops the plant. The only water entering the powerhouse will be through the turbine tunnel for power generation purposes. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the powerhouse was a closed structure and as such would have positive buoyancy, that is, it would float. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the proposed site is between the barge canal and By-Pass spillway and there is a great deal of groundwater and potentiometric pressure in the existing water table. In sum, there is a unlimited supply of groundwater at the site, and powerhouse could float out of the ground just like an empty swimming pool. Hy Power presented rebuttal evidence that the weight of the building, the turbine, and the water flowing through the turbine would be close to negative buoyancy, and they would add additional weight to the structure as necessary to keep it in place. The project is designed to generate three megawatts of electric power which is enough electricity to serve between 300 and 3000 homes, depending on usage. The project is designed to be unmanned. This is common for facilities such as this. The plant can be operated by remote control, unlike the existing controls at the By-Pass Dam, which are operated manually. DEP can access, monitor, and control remotely the generator's operation to include shutting the facility down at any time. There will be remote sensors to monitor water elevations. Flood protection will improve because of the ability of DEP to manage water flow from a remote location. If there is any major disruption, the plant will shut itself down. The project is classified as "green power." In other words, it generates natural energy without any disruption to the environment. The project will have minimal to no impact on the environment. There will be no significant changes in water quality compared to existing conditions as a result of either construction or operation of the facility. WRM Permit Criteria Hy Power has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards of Section 403.918(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The parties stipulated that turbidity and dissolved oxygen were the two surface water quality issues of concern in this proceeding. The receiving water body is the Inglis By-Pass Channel. The Inglis By-Pass Channel is a Class III surface water. The project is not located in a OFW. While the lower Withlacoochee River is an OFW, the OFW designation runs up the natural river itself, and does not include the Spillway Dam, tailrace, or the remainder of the By-Pass Channel. There would be no degradation of water quality at the point of contact with the Withlacoochee River OFW. The DEP and FERC looked specifically at potential for turbidity and dissolved oxygen in determining whether the project would violate state water quality standards. The standards for turbidity and dissolved oxygen will not be violated. Because the By-Pass Dam is an under flow structure, a minimum of oxygenation currently occurs as water flows through the existing dam. The proposed project runs the water underground through the generator; however, Hy Power will measure the dissolved oxygen below the dam in the Lower Withlacoochee River. In the event there is any lowering of dissolved oxygen, Hy Power can install a "sparge ring" to reoxygenate the water going through the turbine so that dissolved oxygen remains at current levels. No turbidity will be added to the receiving water as a result of the project, because water velocity is low and the structure is encased in concrete and rip-rap. The only other potential for turbidity would occur when the coffer dams are removed after construction is complete. The coffer dams can be removed with the generator closed to permit any turbidity to settle. The amount of siltation that might occur when the generator is opened would be insignificant. Where a project is not in a OFW, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to public interest. See Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Hy Power has provided such assurances. The project will not directly affect public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. See Section 403.918 (2)(a)1., Florida Statutes. There are concerns relating to the structural integrity of the proposed facility and adjacent structures which are discussed extensively below. The project will have no adverse impact upon the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat. See Section 403.918 (2)(a)2., Florida Statutes. While manatees are not likely to be found at the project site, the installation of the trash racks will eliminate any potential adverse impact on manatees. In fact, the racks will be an improvement over the current unprotected Spillway Dam. DEP procedures require a specific manatee control plan be implemented to deal with site specific concerns. The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of the water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. See Section 403.918(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes. The project will not adversely affect fishing or recreation values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. See Section 403.918(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. The permanent project and its construction will cause no significant environmental impacts. See Section 403.918(2)(a)5., Florida Statutes. There will be no adverse impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. Section 403.918(2)(a)6., Florida Statutes. With regard to the impact on current conditions and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity, there will be no negative impacts. See Section 403.918(2)(a)7., Florida Statutes. Improvement will result from better control of water flow at the project site, installation of trash racks and implementation of green power. THE FORESEEABLE ADVERSE SECONDARY OR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential adverse secondary impacts related to power transmission are addressed through the fact that there is an existing power line corridor that can be used to transmit the electricity. Any need to change the corridor could be addressed by subsequent DEP permitting. Cumulative impacts are not at issue. Mr. Gammon, with Florida Power, acknowledged that the current electric company, presumably Florida Power, would be required by FERC to transport the electricity generated by Hy Power over its existing corridor and poles. No final decision has been made regarding how to access the site with equipment during construction. Several feasible construction options exist, and there are several ways of accessing the site with heavy equipment vehicles and without impacting wetlands. Any final decision would be subject to DEP approval. Since the project meets the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and wetland impacts are minimal, the project is permittable without the need for mitigation. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The ACOE has issued a permit for the facility. The permit varies slightly from the DEP intent to issue in the use of reinforced concrete rather than rip-rap on the bottom half of the intake channel. This is to comply with ACOE preference, but the variation has only an environmental benefit. Counsel for Petitioners sought to elicit testimony from Linda Sloan, Executive Director of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, with regard to compliance of the proposed project with the Town of Inglis Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Such compliance is not relevant to this proceeding. At any rate, Ms. Sloan conceded that any prohibition that might apply in the Land Development Code to construction of the proposed facility could potentially be alleviated by exemption or variance provisions in the Code. MSSW PERMIT CRITERIA The project will provide adequate flood protection and drainage in the conventional sense. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Because the amount of impervious area is minimal, runoff from the project will not in any way contribute to increased flooding or adversely impact drainage patterns. The total amount of impervious area of the facility is less than that of a single-family residence. SWFWMD rules do not even require MSSW permits for single-family residences because the impact is not significant. The only purpose for requiring a MSSW permit for the project is to review the project’s potential downstream impacts to the watershed, not stormwater runoff from the facility itself. The project will not cause adverse water quality or water quantity impacts on adjacent lands in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or cause a discharge that violates state water quality standards. See Rule 40 D-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. As indicated by the WRM water quality findings above, the project will not generally violate state surface water quality standards. See Rule 40 D-4.301(1)( c), Florida Administrative Code. The project will not generally cause adverse impact on surface or groundwater levels or flows. See Rule 40 D- 4.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Since the project is a run-of-the-river, it will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it under Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. The project will not cause adverse environmental impacts, or adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, and wildlife or other natural resources. The project can be effectively operated and maintained. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The project is a slow speed, low maintenance facility. The design concept is well established and has been successfully used for many years. Possible adverse affects to public safety are discussed below. The project is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Potential harm to water resources within the SWFWMD are discussed below. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed project generally will not interfere with the legal rights of others. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed project is not against public policy. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The project complies with the requirements contained in the Basis of Review. See Rule 40D-4.301(2), Florida Administrative Code. There is a dispute as to whether the project was within or at the edge of the 100-year flood plain. This dispute is related to how one interprets the rule as it relates to the millrace and the location of the facility which is under ground. In the conventional sense, the project is not in the flood plain. Further, the project is designed in such a way, that it is waterproof if it were topped with water. While in the past SWFWMD may have had concerns that the project might cause downstream flooding, SWFWMD currently has no such concerns, given the run-of-the-river status of the proposed project. The operation of the project will not cause downstream flooding. The DEP included in its intent to issue, conditions contained in the sublease between Hy Power and the DEP in order to ensure that the facility would remain run-of-the-river, would comply with the water control plan, and would otherwise comply with the terms of the sublease. The DEP has final control over water flow and can revoke the permit or otherwise take enforcement action against Hy Power if Hy Power fails to comply with the water control plan. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS Operation of the project will not cause groundwater contamination or otherwise have adverse groundwater impacts. Some concerns about groundwater during excavation of the construction site were raised. The conflicting evidence received regarding them is discussed below. An area of concern was the de-watering plan for the project. Everyone agrees there will be some water seepage into the construction site that will have to be pumped out. The parties disagree regarding the amount of water that will have to be removed. Their estimates of amount of water to be removed vary because their estimates of size and over-all depth of the site vary. Petitioners presented credible evidence that a potential exists for the construction site to have a large quantity of water because of its location between two sources of surface water (the By-Pass Channel and Barge Canal), because of the makeup of the subsurface, and because of the depth of the construction. Hy Power credibly represents that if excessive groundwater is found, it can address the adverse impacts through its de-watering plan that would have to be filed with FERC and DEP. The technology exists to address the de-watering of the project. Such plans are routinely considered by DEP after a construction permit is issued and before de-watering occurs. There is very little evidence of sinkhole activity in the project area, and the construction activities are not expected to cause any sinkhole activity. NOISE POLLUTION Mr. Bitter expressed concerns that FERC would require the facility to install a very loud siren that would result in sudden noise adverse to the well-being of neighbors. Mr. Bitter is unfamiliar with FERC siren requirements at run-of the-river hydroelectric facilities. In contrast, Mr. Volkin, who has substantial experience in this area, testified that the only alarm device that would be required would be for the protection of the workers during construction. The purpose of the alarm is to warn persons below a dam spillway of a change in the volume of water being let out of the impoundment. In the case of a run-of-the-river facility, the volume is near constant, changing only gradually. Therefore, even if a warning siren had to be installed its use would be limited to significant changes in flow or testing. This would not constitute a nuisance. Further, the facility is located in the vicinity of the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant which has its own warning sirens. It would be prudent to make any warning devices required for this structure significantly different from those at the nuclear plant and to limit their use. DAM SAFETY AND FERC REVIEW In reviewing whether Hy Power’s applications complied with the relevant permitting criteria, the DEP took into consideration the review of the facility already performed by FERC. FERC will also be responsible for reviewing the project as it is being constructed. Mr. Edwards also raised concerns about the structural stability of the By-Pass Dam itself. This has been a subject of concern by those responsible for the dam, and a survey of the structure was conducted in 1993, referred to as the Greiner Report. The Greiner Report identified specific maintenance problems that have been and are being addressed by the DEP. However, DEP’s maintenance plan does not address specifically the possibility that the weight of the dam over time has caused some shifting in the dam. Hy Power has only a few core borings and only one at the location of the generator. Hy Power is using the ACOE’s original borings, as confirmed by several new ones, to develop its preliminary plans. The DEP considered FERC and the ACOE as responsible agencies for determining the structural integrity of the dam. DEP has taken FERC’s review of this facility into consideration as part of DEP’s own permitting review. It is normal for DEP to rely on outside sources and agencies for assistance in determining compliance with DEP permitting criteria such as public health and safety, and it is reasonable for DEP to do so in this instance. Most states do not have the full capability to evaluate dam safety, and so they rely on FERC and ACOE. On April 21, 1997, the project received a conduit exemption from FERC. The application process is illustrated in Hy Power Exhibit 11. Hy Power submitted to DEP detailed information about the dam, the associated structures and the proposed project which had been reviewed by FERC and the ACOE, the two agencies in the United States who are responsible for dam structure design, control, and administration. Included in the package was the Greiner Report and Hy Power’s review of it. FERC evaluated the project, the Inglis By-Pass Dam structure, and the proximity of the project to the Dam in relation to structural impact, upstream and downstream impacts, water quality, and environmental issues. Mr. Edwards raised concerns regarding the ability of the limestone bedrock to sustain additional construction in the area of proposed construction. This is a material issue in the controversy which impacts several aspects of the proposed construction. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the barge canal channel was constructed with the use of explosives that caused a fracturing of limestone bedrock. He pointed out that the steel panels, which Hy Power proposes to drive into the bedrock to construct the water retention structure necessary to excavate the hole into which the turbine and powerhouse would be placed, will further fracture this bedrock. This creates two potential dangers. It could permit water to move under and around the bottoms of the panels, potentially scouring the loosened material from the base of the panels and making them unstable and subject to failure. It could weaken the entire southern wing of the existing spillway dam. Mr. Edwards opined that this could result in catastrophic failure of the dam or the coffer dam. Such a failure would cause major destruction and loss of life to those persons living and working in and along the lower Withlacoochee River. Hy Power presented rebuttal evidence that it could and would, if necessary, inject concrete into the limestone to stabilize it and avoid the concerns raised by Mr. Edwards. FERC specifically evaluated concerns raised by project opponents over the poor physical condition of the By-Pass Channel Spillway structures, relying particularly on the 1993 Greiner Report. FERC noted that the DEP had entered into a contract to correct any deficiencies listed in the Greiner Report, which "did not conclude that the deficiencies at the By-Pass Spillway threaten downstream life and property." The FERC review concluded that the dam was safe. To ensure safety, FERC is requiring that Hy Power do a complete stability analysis of the dam prior to any construction. Articles 301 and 302 of the FERC exemption ensure that all final drawings and specifications be submitted to FERC prior to construction, along with a supporting design report consistent with FERC’s Engineering Guidelines; that FERC can require changes to assure a safe and adequate project; and that Hy Power must also submit approved coffer dam construction drawings and specifications at least 30 days prior to starting construction. FERC has its own engineering staff who will go to the site and do their own analysis, along with the ACOE, of the dam and structures, prior to any construction commencing. This is a detailed design review evaluation so that the latest information on the dam will be made known immediately prior to construction, and will prevent any catastrophic event from happening. Under FERC procedures, FERC requires the applicant to obtain the DEP permits prior to requiring applicant to submit more detailed construction designs for FERC's consideration. These more detailed designs in turn will be subject to further review by DEP and FERC. It is assumed that Hy Power will comply with the post- permitting procedures and requirements, and will present complete, detailed construction drawings for FREC and DEP approval. Hy Power’s failure to complete the process would result in denial of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the DEP enter a Final Order that issues the two permits challenged in this proceedings, WRM Permit No. 38-237096-3.001 and MSSW Permit No. 38-0129249-002, subject to the conditions contained in the Intents to Issue in the respective WRM and MSSW Permits and as described in the Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger Davis & Singerman 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John S. Clardy, III, Esquire Crider Law Firm Plantation Point 521 West Fort Island Trail, Suite A Crystal River, Florida 34429 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bernard M. Campbell Bessie H. Campbell 245 Palm Street Post Office Box 159 Inglis, Florida 34449 Sarah E. Berger Post Office Box 83 Inglis, Florida 34449
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
