The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicants-respondents Floyd and Alice Melton have provided reasonable assurances that their proposed dock meets the requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1989) and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, for issuance of a dredge and fill permit. Only four issues of disputed fact are raised by the pleadings in these cases: (1) whether the project will adversely affect navigation as that term is used in Section 403.918(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes; (2) whether the project will adversely affect recreational values in the vicinity of the project, in the context of the public interest test of Section 403.918(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes; (3) whether an increased number of boats at the proposed dock would cause "pollution" which would violate water quality criteria promulgated by the Department, and (4) whether the pilings will harm seagrasses in the vicinity of the dock.
Findings Of Fact An 85' dock perpendicular to the shoreline of the Meltons' property at Lot 4, Block 2, Buccaneer Point Estates, Key Largo, was in existence in 1988, some portion of which was apparently constructed without the benefit of a dredge and fill permit. On October 20, 1988, Floyd Melton applied to the Department (hereinafter "DER") for an after-the-fact permit for a 48' x 20' section, as an addition to a previously existing structure. After DER received the Meltons' permit application, an agency field inspector visited the site to determine whether the Meltons' proposed project could be constructed in conformance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, including the "public interest" tests at Section 403.918(2), and the "Keys Rule," Rule 17-312.420, Florida Administrative Code. The project site is located in Class III, Outstanding Florida Waters. The relevant factual determinations that DER personnel had to make at the Melton site, to ascertain compliance with the Keys Rule, were (a) the water depths, and (b) the presence or absence of seagrass communities in the proposed boat mooring area. The proposed 90' dock would have terminated over seagrass community in less than 5' of water depth. DER informed the Meltons, on February 9, 19890, that the permit would be denied unless they redesigned the dock to extend a distance of 275' out from the shore (289' total length), to where a water depth of 5' existed, limited the dock to a 4' width, and elevated the access walkway 6 feet above mean high water, to prohibit mooring along it and to increase light penetration underneath the dock. The Meltons amended their permit application to so comply. There are seagrasses under the entire length of the proposed dock. There are dense seagrass communities at the terminus of the proposed dock, surrounded by less dense seagrass communities. Under the boat currently moored near the terminus of the Meltons' uncompleted dock, there is a dense seagrass bed that is not adversely affected by the presence of the boat, which is moored in 5' of water. There is a "halo" of denuded bottom extending 4-6 inches around each piling, and occasional gouges that extend beyond the halo, which features are an ordinary and expected effect of driving pilings into the sea bed. Petitioners' expert's uncontroverted testimony is that 10 pilings placed in the dense seagrass bed at the end of the proposed dock would have no effect on the viability of that seagrass bed, while 100 pilings "would definitely damage" its viability. The survey introduced by the Meltons shows six pilings where the terminal platform is to be constructed, and three more offshore pilings for mooring purposes, for a total of nine. Other existing mooring pilings shown in the survey, landward of the proposed terminal platform, are to be removed in accordance with the permit. The water depth at the end of the Meltons' existing 85' dock is between 3.0' and 3.25', which is comparable to other existing docks in the area. Fast boats, such as water-skiing boats and one-person watercraft, operating in shallow water over a seagrass bed can damage seagrasses by "prop scarring" or by stirring up sediments. At another dock in the area, where the water depth is 3.75' at the dock's terminus, there is evidence of damage to seagrass beds by such prop-scarring. The water depth at the end of Petitioner Traurig's dock is only 1.67' to 2.0', necessitating very careful boat operation to prevent damage to seagrasses. The stipulated modification to the permit allowing three mooring pilings and requiring mooring waterward of the terminal platform clarifies DER's understanding that boats would only be moored on the waterward side of the terminal platform. No more than one or two boats can reasonably be moored at the facility. That is no more than could have been moored at the previous dock; in fact, it is equivalent to the two moored at Petitioner Traurig's dock. The environmental impact of the proposed Melton dock would be far less than that of the other docks along this shoreline, primarily because it causes boats to be operated and moored in deeper water. Neither the proposed project, nor the one or two boats that can be expected to moor at the terminal platform, will have any adverse effect on Florida Bay or the seagrass communities in the immediate vicinity. The entire area of Florida Bay except for the shoreline area where the Melton and other docks in the vicinity are located is open for navigation. It is between 0.4 and 0.5 miles from the end of the proposed dock to the nearest navigation channel. The proposed dock is not a hazard to navigation in that nearest channel, the Intracoastal Waterway. It is, however, an inconvenience and can present a hazard to unwary nighttime recreational users in the waters next to the shoreline where the Melton, Clarke, and Traurig docks are located. Petitioners' witnesses' testimony focused on how the Melton dock would force them to change their usual paths while recreating in the area, or traveling to and from nearby docks. Water-skiers and "knee-towers" have had to modify the route they used to take when water-skiing or knee-towing past the Melton property, now that much of the dock is in place. Some boat operators, Petitioners' witnesses included, continue to operate their boats so close to the Melton dock that near- collisions take place. A sailor chose to forego landing his catamaran at a dock near the Melton dock because its presence would have given him "a hard time getting out." Youngsters on "hydoslides" and "wet bikes," and in small boats, have passed landward of the outermost pilings of the uncompleted Melton dock, literally going under the structure, on several occasions. One neighbor witnessed three nighttime collisions with the uncompleted Melton dock by boaters, each of which ended when the boaters extricated themselves from the pilings. Traurig's tenant next door to the Meltons, when traveling to and from her dock, complained that "you can't go straight out anymore. You have to go out and then around. You have to be cautious..." Petitioner Traurig stated that the Melton dock would "almost cause her to jump out of her unpowered sailboat and tow it into her dock," as it would limit her ability to tack in the close confines created by the new dock. Petitioner Charles Clarke, whose property is separated from the Meltons by Petitioner Traurig's property, stated that the proposed dock is "an obstacle essentially to navigation and enjoyment of that waterway as I used it...," and that he is prevented from tacking into his dock by the presence of the Meltons' dock. Buccaneer Point is full of docks. The neighboring docks are generally approximately 100' long, while the Meltons' dock that DER proposes to permit will be 289' long, with mooring pilings and a boat extending this facility between 300' and 310' offshore. Boaters will be required to avoid this dock while recreating in the area, and while travelling to and from nearby docks. The proposed dock will discourage boaters and water- skiers from traveling through the very shallow waters off the ends of the other docks in the vicinity, potentially injuring themselves and the benthic communities. The Melton dock will not cross over the riparian lines of the Melton property. The project is clearly in the public interest by preventing ongoing adverse impacts of the existing dock, allowing the recolonization of habitat in those disturbed areas, and by extending the dock to prevent the destruction of the bay bottom. This is accomplished by elevating the dock to 6' and restricting its width to 4' in order to allow better sunlight penetration below the dock. This is also accomplished by prohibiting the mooring of vessels other than seaward of the terminus platform, thereby keeping vessels in deeper water to prevent additional destruction of the seagrass beds throughout the area. During the course of the final hearing, the Meltons and DER entered into several stipulations which will promote the absence of impact to the seagrass community. They have agreed that the following conditions will be made part of any permit issued by DER: The dock structure will be modified so that it is T-shaped rather than L-shaped. The terminal platform and access walkway will be of the dimensions contained in DER's "intent to issue." The access walkway can intersect the terminal platform at any point along the platform's 40' length. There will be 3 mooring pilings placed seaward of the terminal platform. The permit will restrict the mooring of vessels to the seaward side of the terminal platform. The Meltons will remove the 3 mooring pilings located to the right of the dock and 2 of the 4 pilings located to the left of the dock. The Meltons will not use a water-based barge in less than 2' of water in connection with the dock construction or driving or removing the pilings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Meltons' application for a dredge and fill permit, conditioned upon the stipulations and the mitigative recommendation set forth in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16 day of October, 1990. LINDA H. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NOS. 89-6051 and 89-6135 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 6, 7, 22d, 22g, 22j, and 22r have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 22f, 22h, 22i, and 22n- 22q have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, 19, 22a, 22c, 22e, 22i, 22k, and 22m have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 8-18, 20, 21, 22b, 22s, and 22t have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-23, and 26 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 25 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 24 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Respondents Meltons' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Chenoweth, Esquire 31 Garden Cove Drive Key Largo, Florida 33037 James S. Mattson, Esquire Joseph J. Vetrick, Esquire MATTSON, TOBIN & VETRICK Post Office Box 586 Key West, Florida 33037 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve whether the Respondent, St. Joe Paper Company ("St. Joe"), is entitled to a "dredge and fill permit" authorizing it to construct a marina for recreational boats, containing 84 boat slips, along the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. Embodied within that general consideration are issues involving whether St. Joe, in the construction and operation of the marina, can comply with water-quality parameters embodied in Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code, for Class III waters of the State, Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, as well as the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and the standard concerning "cumulative impact" embodied in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, St. Joe, seeks to construct and operate a recreational boat marina, consisting of a single, main pier, 12 feet wide and extending some 850 feet waterward in a westerly direction from the shoreline of the east bank of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The main pier will join a terminal pier extending approximately 575 feet in a general north/south direction parallel to the shoreline of the St. Johns River, perpendicular to and abutting the longer main pier. Extended in a landward or easterly direction from the terminal pier structure will be four (4) individual "finger piers" ranging from 119 to 305 feet in length. Located along the individual piers and along a portion of the main pier near the waterward end of it will be 84 slips for recreational-type boats. Additionally, a breakwater system will be suspended along the outer perimeter of the terminal pier and northernmost and southernmost individual piers in order to reduce wave action and its effect on boats in the interior of the marina. Additional details concerning the marina design and operation are contained in the findings of fact below. The Site The site of the proposed marina is on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. At that point, the St. Johns River is almost two miles wide, being approximately 10,000 feet from shoreline to shoreline. The proposed marina site encompasses approximately 1,100 linear feet of river bank frontage. All of the adjacent upland property is owned by St. Joe, and St. Joe owns extensive additional river frontage to the north and south of the marina site. The nearest properties not owned by St. Joe are located 3,500 feet to the north of the site and 1,500 feet to the south of the site. The site is located approximately two miles north of Hallowes Cove, a relatively pristine, diverse and productive marine habitat. The site is characterized, landward of the terminal end of the pier and waterward of the upland, by an unvegetated "near shore area or tidal zone" which extends approximately 50 feet from the mean high-water line of the river to the mean low-water line. Waterward of this zone and extending to a depth of approximately two feet is a system of grass beds, (vallisnerida), commonly known as "tape grass". The grass beds extend approximately 200 to 250 feet from the shoreline. Waterward of the grass beds is an unvegetated area with a gradual slope to a depth of approximately six feet. From the six-foot contour of the river bottom, a relatively precipitous slope begins, extending to depths which exceed 19 feet. In this zone, there are no grass beds. Further waterward and extending beyond the most waterward extent of the the marina site, the river bottom rises somewhat to depths of 13 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet, in the direction of the center of the river. The river bottom substrate in the area of the marina is composed primarily of sand. This includes some shell and other coarse materials, with minor amounts of silt. In fact, organic silt is a very small portion of the bottom sediments, consisting, at a depth of four and one-half feet, of less than 1% silt and at a depth of 15 feet of less than 6% silt content. The present water quality prevailing at the marina site is good, and the benthic habitat in the general area is healthy and diverse. The most landward boat slips proposed at the marina will be located at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the most waterward extent of the grass beds. These most landward slips will be located in depths of approximately eight feet. Access to the marina will be from the north and south in defined channels marked on the west by the end of the individual piers and on the east by channel markers located at the depth contour of minus six feet. That is, the six-foot depth will be the most shallow portion of the channel marked by the channel markers, so that boats will not be permitted to navigate the shallower portion landward of the channel markers insofar as the marina's enforcement program can insure that. The approximate width of the northern channel is 75 feet, and the width of the southern channel is 50 feet. Due to the precipitous drop in depth beyond the contour of minus six feet, the average depth of the channels is 10 to 12 feet. The majority of the boat slips, as well as the basin of the marina, will be located in depths of between 10 and 18 feet. The consultant and expert witness who designed the marina, Erik Olsen, established that the length of the main pier and the location of the most landward of the boat slips and the location of the channel markers are all part of a design and plan intended to insure that marina and boat activity within the marina occur well beyond the extant grass beds and waterward of depths of six feet, to insure that no damage to the grass bed habitat area is occasioned by propeller scouring, "prop-wash", or grounding of boats. Other design measures are also intended to preclude boaters from entering the shallow depths and grass bed areas. Two tiers of signs will be located between the marina basin and the most waterward extent of the grass beds. First, regulatory buoys and signs are proposed to be located at the contour of minus four feet and will establish a "manatee protection zone" landward of that contour. The evidence reveals, however, that a safer contour for the manatee protection zone boundary to be established by the applicant would dictate placing the regulatory warning signs concerning the manatee protection zone at the same contour, minus six feet of water, where the channel markers will be located. This is because the marina will serve boats of up to 4.5 feet in draught. Secondly, a tier of signs will be located approximately ten feet waterward of the most waterward extent of the grass beds warning boaters that aquatic grass beds exist landward of the signs and that prop dredging and boat operation is prohibited. Such warnings at the locations found above should be mandatory conditions to any grant of the permit. A specific, agreed-upon condition is already in the draft permit issued by the Department prescribing the size and lettering of these signs and other design details. A railing will extend, as proposed by the applicant, along the main pier between the slips and the shoreline to discourage boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the slips. The evidence establishes that in order to more adequately insure protection of the manatee habitat area and the grass beds, a mandatory condition in boat-slip rental leases should be inserted to absolutely prohibit boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the boat slips. Because of the currents and significant water depth prevailing at the marina site, the marina construction will require no dredging nor will operation and maintenance of the marina require any dredging on a continuing basis. Additionally, in the interest of protecting water quality, no fueling facilities or boat fueling will be permitted at the marina at all; and the grant of a permit should be mandatorily conditioned on this basis. Neither will any boat maintenance or repair be permitted at the marina, including no hauling of boats or scraping or painting of boat bottoms. This condition should be clearly pointed out to users of the marina by appropriate warning signs regarding the prohibition against boat maintenance and repair, including warnings concerning the proper methods of disposal of used oil and other petroleum products. The marina will feature pump-out facilities for boat heads and bilges. The pump-out facilities will consist of a central pumping system in which waste is removed from the boats, transported by pipeline to an upland, central waste water collection and treatment system. No holding tanks or other storage of wastes will be located at the piers. The pump-out facility will serve not only the boat heads but also boat bilges in order to prevent contaminants, such as oil and boat fuel from entering the State waters involved. The piers will feature trash collection containers of appropriate number, size and location on the piers so as to provide convenient trash disposal for each boat slip. The piers will also feature plastic modular dock boxes to preclude boaters from randomly storing materials and equipment on the piers. No fish cleaning will be permitted on the piers at all, but rather must be accomplished on the uplands, with disposal of related wastes in the upland collection system. A "no wake" zone will be established in an area extending 500 feet north and 500 feet south of the marina. The "no wake" zone will be marked pursuant to requirements of the Florida Marine Patrol. The marked "no wake" zone should also extend waterward of the farthest waterward extent of the marina, as well as 500 feet north and south of it. Only private, recreational boats will be moored at the marina. All commercial boats will be prohibited. The marina will serve a Yacht Club to be developed by St. Joe in conjunction with the marina. Only members of the Yacht Club and their guests will be permitted to use the marina. This will assist with enforcement of the various conditions on marina operation and maintenance by the owners as to the boat-slip lessees and their guests. This and all other conditions should be enforced by mandatory restrictions in the boat-slip leases. Likewise, the applicant has agreed to permit no "liveaboard" boats at the marina in order to avoid the possibility of sewage or other contaminants entering the State waters from liveaboard boats. The upland facilities will include restrooms, and signs should be appropriately placed on the piers to advise boaters and boat owners and operators of the availability of restroom facilities. The marina will not feature fueling facilities; however, St. Joe will maintain pollution containment supplies and equipment at the marina sufficient to contain any potential fuel or other petroleum spills from catastrophic events, such as the rupture of a boat fuel tank. Expert witnesses for St. Joe established that a "management and operational plan" designed to enforce the provisions enumerated above will be enacted by the applicant. The management and operational plan includes three mechanisms of enforcement: Warning signs. Boat-slip lease agreements which must incorporate all restrictions found to be necessary herein. These will contain an enforcement provision providing for mandatory eviction from use and lease of the marina facilities for any breach of those conditions by lessees or their guests. Management personnel will be employed on the marina property to enforce all restrictions and conditions designed to insure environmentally-safe operation and maintenance of the marina, and such personnel should be employed during all operating hours of the marina, not just during daylight hours, as proposed by the applicant. Signs will be posted at conspicuous locations at the marina and at the upland facilities of the Yacht Club informing boaters of the marina rules and prohibitions. The signage will be visible to Yacht Club members and their guests using the marina, and members' guests will be required, upon mooring at the marina, to register and to review the rules and prohibitions. Boat-slip lease agreements at the marina will incorporate these marina rules and prohibitions. Under the lease agreements, a violation of the marina rules or prohibitions by a member or guest will be considered a breach of the lease and will result in revocation of the lease and removal of the member's boat from the marina. A dock master will be employed at the marina to supervise the operation and maintenance of the marina and will be assisted by dock hands and other personnel in order to see that the conditions and restrictions referenced herein are enforced. The applicant has proposed such personnel being employed during daylight hours. However, in order to insure that the standards for operation and maintenance of the marina and boats using it will be enforced so as to avoid water-quality violations and violations of the public interest parameters delineated below, the permit grant should be conditioned upon such personnel being employed during all operating hours of the marina, whether daylight hours or not. If this is accomplished, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the management and operational plan will reasonably insure enforcement of the marina's rules, prohibitions and conditions on any grant of the permit and likewise reasonably insure that water-quality and public interest standards are not violated. Upland Facilities The upland and Yacht Club facilities to be developed in conjunction with the marina will be located on approximately seven acres adjacent to the marina site. The Yacht Club and related facilities will include a clubhouse, parking, and a storm water treatment system which will serve the upland facilities. St. Joe has obtained a conceptual permit for the management and storage of surface waters for the proposed upland improvements, including the Yacht Club. It will also seek a permit for the storm water treatment system, itself. St. Joe, through its consultants, has investigated and opined that the installation of the proposed upland facilities are feasible and can comply with applicable regulatory criteria and is pursuing the necessary permits and approvals from local governments and state agencies. It will insure that all such is accomplished prior to initiation of construction of the Yacht Club facilities. The precise configuration and design of all upland facilities will be dictated by applicable local ordinances and the requirements of State regulatory agencies. Marina Impacts The applicant/Respondent and the Petitioners are in essential agreement, through the testimony of their witnesses, regarding the general potential impacts which may be posed by marinas in a general sense, when located in proximity to environmentally-sensitive areas. Concerning anticipated impacts of this marina at the subject site, however, St. Joe presented the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as a hydrographic study. It was thus established that violations of the pertinent water-quality statute and rules and the public interest standards contained in the statute referenced herein will not be violated. The Petitioners, although presenting both lay and expert testimony regarding the water quality and habitat type and quality in the general area of the site and the general impacts that can be caused by marinas in such areas, presented no expert testimony or studies regarding the anticipated impacts of this particular marina, as designed and configured by the applicant, on the subject site and aquatic habitat. Water Quality Considerations Marinas are potential sources of pollutants which may adversely impact water quality. Different sources at a marina may generate different pollutants; and in this case, testimony addressed these potential pollutant impacts. The totality of the expert testimony taken at hearing establishes that the marina will not likely cause a violation of applicable water-quality standards. One witness for the Petitioners, Bill Watkins, was accepted as an expert in water quality. In describing potential impacts of the marina, however, he only opined that there "could be some effect on water quality"; however, he did not specifically establish adverse effects on water quality which could be anticipated or reasonably expected regarding violations of applicable standards. Mr. Watkins acknowledged: "As to whether or not that degree of pollution, and that's what we're talking about, degree of impact, would be something that would be, have a significant degradation effect, I could not answer without further site specific studies." Mr. Watkins further described the type of site specific information which would be required for him to make a proper assessment of water-quality impacts, including hydrographics and the nature of the sediments existing at the site. Other witnesses for the Petitioners similarly declined to opine regarding violations of the water-quality standards because site specific information was not available to them. Dr. DeMort, for example, explicitly declined to offer an opinion regarding water-quality violations. The opinions and testimony of the expert witnesses on water quality presented on behalf of St. Joe, as well as by the Department, are accepted in establishing that no water-quality violations by the construction and operation of the marina are anticipated. The reasonable assurance that water-quality violations will not occur through the construction and operation of the marina is illustrated by the unrefuted evidence concerning the hydrographics by which the site is characterized. A knowledge of site hydrographics is necessary to accurately determine potential water-quality impacts. A hydrographic study was prepared by St. Joe through the auspices of its consultant, Olsen Associates Incorporated. The experts who prepared that study testified on behalf of St. Joe at hearing, and a Department witness who reviewed the study testified by deposition. None of the Petitioners' expert witnesses addressed the subject of site hydrographics other than to note that they were an important consideration. Mr. Buckingham was accepted as an expert witness in the area of marine engineering with emphasis on hydrographics. He testified regarding the hydrographic study prepared and submitted by St. Joe. The study involved the collection of data at the site, including the gauging of water surface elevations over a two-day period in December of 1988; the comparison of those elevations to predicted elevations based upon historical data; a measurement of current velocities at the site; a dye study to assess the flow regime at the site; and the gathering of depth soundings and sediment samples to confirm the bathymetry and nature of bottom sediments at the site. The hydrographic study also involved the analysis of the data collected at the site. Hydrographics at the site are composed of two components, the transport of a pollutant by advective currents and the dispersion or diffusion of a pollutant within the water column. The physical transport by advective currents dominates the hydrographic circumstance prevailing at the marina site. A pollutant introduced at the site is more likely to be physically transported away from the site, in addition to being merely dispersed through the water column at the site. This is because of the relatively high current velocities prevailing. Both the transport and dispersion components were analyzed in the study to determine the time and distance necessary to reduce an initial concentration of a hypothetical pollutant to 10% of its initial concentration. A pollutant introduced at the site would be reduced to 10% of its initial concentration in less than seven minutes and within 400 feet of the site on the ebb tide and within 300 feet of the site on the flood tide. Moreover, the "plume" of this hypothetical pollutant would occur in a longshore direction parallel to the shore, as opposed to a direction toward the shore and would be of comparatively narrow width (approximately 30 feet). The hydrographics of this site are such that a complete water exchange will occur in 20 to 30 minutes at any point during the tidal cycle. The evidence thus demonstrated that the site is extremely well flushed by tidal currents. In his deposition, Ken Echternacht, of the Department, testified that data in the hydrographic study was realistic in his experience and that he had no questions or concerns regarding the data and methodology used to confirm that data. In addition to Mr. Buckingham's testimony and the study, itself, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht established that flushing is of no concern and is thoroughly adequate at the site. Dr. Echternacht is the Department's hydrographic engineer, whose function is to review all dredge and fill permit applications which may have impacts upon the hydraulics of surface water systems. He has reviewed approximately 1,500 dredge and fill permit applications. His testimony and that of Mr. Buckingham is accepted, as is that of other Department expert witnesses in establishing the excellent flushing characteristics of the site and that the construction and operation of the marina will not adversely affect the present hydrographic situation at the site, as that relates to establishing that no water quality violations will occur. All marinas are potential sources of pollutants. The first to be addressed involves the installation of the pilings themselves during the construction of the marina. This is a potential source of turbidity. Turbidity involves the suspension of bottom sediments and substrate material in the water column, which can pose, among other problems, the retardation of light penetration through the water column which can have an adverse impact on photosynthesis in marine grass beds. In extreme cases, it can cause the destruction of grass beds through killing of the grass by lack of adequate light penetration, as well as the smothering effect of sediments being deposited upon grasses. The method to be used by St. Joe in installing the pilings will be by "jetting" them into the bottom of the river initially and then driving the pilings into the river bottom to the required depth to support the piers. Witnesses for St. Joe and the Department established that this method will constitute an adequate safeguard to be employed during construction to minimize any turbidity. Any temporary or local turbidity caused by the installation of the pilings will be transitory and will pose no significant water-quality violation; however, turbidity curtains will, be employed, if necessary, by the applicant to control any such turbidity during construction. Another potential source of turbidity at a marina involves the dredging, washing or disturbance of the river bottom caused by boat propellers or boat keels. The evidence demonstrated that the risk of such "prop dredging" or wash at this marina will be negligible due to the design features and conditions at the site, including the channels and channel markers, and particularly by the depth of waters prevailing at the site. The marina basin and boat slips are located in water of sufficient depth to prevent prop dredging or wash. The =average depth of the entrance channels is between 10 and 12 feet. Maneuvering within the marina basin will occur in depths of 10 feet or greater. Although the most landward boat slips are located in depths of approximately eight feet, the average depth within most slips is approximately 10 to 12 feet. These depths are based upon the bathymetric survey of the site and confirmed by random soundings performed during the course of the hydrographic study in evidence. Further, these depths are "mean low water" depths. Mean low water reflects the "lowest expected level" within a 29-day tidal epic. The "mean lower low" level is the lowest expected level over the course of a year. That level prevailing at the site, according to the study, is 0.1 feet lower than mean low water. The maximum draught of boats expected to be moored at the marina is 4.5 feet. Thus, the depths in the marina will allow ample clearance between propellers and keels and the river bottom. The required clearance between boat bottoms and propellers and the river bottom can further be assured by proper placement of boats in the boat slips in the leasing process and in the assignment of boat slips to casual, temporary users of the marina. In other words, the larger boats will be assigned to the deeper, more waterward slips. Other measures include warning signs, which should be placed along the six-foot depth contour, along the landward edge of the entrance channels and beyond the waterward extent of the grass beds. This will insure that boaters do not stray into shallow-water, aquatic habitat areas. A second factor in determining the potential for prop dredging at the marina is the nature of the sediments themselves. Four witnesses, including those testifying for the Department and for the Petitioners, established that the sediments at the site are primarily sand-based, with minimal organic silt content. The sandy nature of the sediments minimizes the potential for turbidity caused by prop dredging or prop washing (hydraulic currents created by propeller operation) because sand, by its density, mass and weight, tends to settle out to the bottom much quicker if it is suspended in the water column. Even if prop dredging did occur at the marina, generating turbidity, the high flushing characteristic of the site would quickly transport and disperse any such turbidity and render it undetectable and likely prevent its deposition on the grass beds. A potential source of pollutants at a marina is boat fuel. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the design and operational features of the marina, primarily the absence of any fueling facilities, will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants generated by fueling operations. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is waste from boat heads and bilges generated by flushing boat heads or pumping out of bilges with bilge pumps. Expert witnesses for St. Joe, as well as the Department, established that the design and operational features with which this marina will be characterized will minimize or eliminate the potential for such pollutants to be generated because liveaboard boats will be prohibited, and the pumping out of heads and bilges will also be prohibited because of the conditions agreed to by the applicant for a grant of this permit. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is the use of anti-fouling paint used on the bottoms of boats and the periodic scraping and repainting of boats. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the operational features and design of this marina will minimize the potential for pollutants from this source because boat painting, sanding, and scraping and other operations attendant to boat painting will be absolutely prohibited at the marina. Finally, another potential source of pollutants would be trash and garbage materials. The potential for pollution from this source will be minimized by the use of trash containers and dock boxes located at frequent intervals around the piers and boat slips, as well as the instructional signs to be placed on the piers and slips by the applicant and the publication of marina rules in order to inform boat operators and guests of the necessity to dispose of trash in the proper containers. It has thus been established that the design and operational characteristics of the marina and conditions to be imposed thereon will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants to be generated and placed in the surface waters at the site. The marina will not occasion violations of applicable water-quality standards. Any pollutants which might be deposited in the surface waters at the site will be quickly transported and dispersed so as to be undetectable at the marina or in the vicinity of the marina because of the critical role played by the hydrographics prevailing at the site. Public Interest Impacts Much of the testimony at hearing regarding impacts upon the various public interest standards, including wildlife and habitats, focused upon the grass beds, and the benthic communities prevailing in deeper water at the site, as well as the fact that the site is used by manatees. Dr. Quinton White was accepted as an expert in biology and biological impacts of marina construction and operation. He testified on behalf of the applicant. His testimony and that of other expert witnesses offered by St. Joe and the Department established that there would be no adverse impact on benthic communities and organisms, including manatees, caused by the construction and operation of the marina. The Petitioners called expert witnesses on the issue of impacts on wildlife. Mike Allen, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, testified that he was not really qualified as an expert in fisheries or benthic communities but, rather, in terms of terrestrial species which are not involved in this proceeding. Lawson Snyder, another Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, was accepted as an expert in fisheries biology on behalf of Petitioner but testified that the marina's impacts upon fish and wildlife would not be detectable. Jim Valade, a Florida Department of Natural Resources staff member, was also accepted as an expert in marine biology, including fish and manatees, but testified that the permit applicant has taken steps to protect manatees in virtually all aspects and that his department's concerns regarding the safety of manatees have been adequately addressed by the design and proposed operation of the marina. Bill Watkins, a St. Johns River Water Management District staff member, was accepted as an expert in biology, but testified that the design of the marina provides the grass beds "a fair degree of protection" and declined to opine that the marina would have any adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Finally, Dr. Carol DeMort, in her deposition, specifically declined to render any opinion regarding adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Thus, the evidence adduced by the Petitioners at hearing did not rebut the evidence introduced by the applicant that the marina will have no detectable impacts upon wildlife or habitats involved in the vicinity of the site St. Joe introduced evidence concerning impacts from shading upon grass beds by the marina structures themselves and from turbidity "washed" onto, the grass beds by motorized boats maneuvering in the marina basin. Expert testimony was adduced that established that shading caused by the widest pier, that is, the main pier with a width of 12 feet, would have no adverse impact on the grass beds due to shading. That testimony was unrebutted and is accepted. Two expert witnesses for St. Joe, a marine engineer and a biologist, as well as a Department witness, established that, even assuming that turbidity was generated by propeller action in the marina basin, the turbidity resulting from prop wash would not be transported 275 feet from the marina basin offshore to the :grass beds at the inshore area. They attributed those opinions to the nature of the sediments involved which are not readily suspended, the flushing at the site, the distance between the basin and the grass beds, and the typical extent of prop wash from boats expected to be used at the marina. The Petitioners presented two witnesses, who testified regarding the impacts of prop wash. Mr. Allen, an expert in upland terrestrial species, testified regarding the potential for deposition of sediments on grass beds but also acknowledged that the hydrographics at the site, the distance between the marina basin and the grass beds and other protective measures would minimize this potential. One lay witness for the Petitioners testified to the effect that if a "handful" of boat owners in the marina violated the "no wake" restrictions and accelerated their boats in violation of those restrictions, they would cause turbidity to be placed upon the grass beds. His testimony was contradicted, however, by a marine engineer, who testified that prop wash is a function of many parameters (e.g., the RPM of the engine, the horsepower of the engine, the draught of the boat, and configuration of the propellers, etc.). He established that it would not be reasonable to expect prop wash extending twice the length of a boat. Regarding impacts upon benthic communities at the site, the applicant introduced expert testimony which established that the benthic communities in that vicinity of the marina, including the grass beds, fin fish, shellfish, and other organisms, will not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the marina in light of the safeguards which would be imposed upon the permit, as delineated herein. This is primarily due to the absence of significant concentrations of pollutants to be expected and the hydrographics prevailing at the site as that relates to the unlikelihood of boat grounding, prop dredging, and prop wash suspending pollutants and turbidity and depositing them on benthic community habitat areas. Only one of Petitioners' witnesses, Dr. DeMort, testified in her deposition concerning potential impacts upon benthic communities. Dr. DeMort made it clear, however, that she had conducted no investigations and studies necessary to enable her to render an expert opinion on the impacts upon the benthic communities prevailing at the site which might be caused by the marina's construction and operation. Her testimony in this regard only related to marina installation and operation in general and was not related to the specific design characteristics and proposed operational parameters of the subject marina. Manatees are an endangered species. There is much concern about their welfare with regard to the proposed project because all parties acknowledge that the site and the shoreward grass bed areas, particularly, are frequented by manatees, particularly for summer foraging. Manatees tend to forage in shallow waters and associated grass beds. Boats pose definite hazards to manatees and cause significant manatee deaths each year due to impact from boats, as much as 15% to 30% of the known population. In response to this hazard, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has recommended that grass beds be protected and that establishment of protective or "no wake" zones in manatee foraging areas be accomplished. In light of such restrictions voluntarily agreed to by St. Joe and its expert testimony in this regard and in light of the manatee education and awareness measures proposed by the applicant, it has been demonstrated that the marina will not have any negative impact on the manatee population in the area. The Petitioners' only expert witness concerning manatees, Jim Valade, indeed, opined that the marina had taken steps to protect manatees "in virtually all aspects". In this connection, the design features in the management and operational plan discussed herein and proposed by the applicant embodies measures to address potential impacts upon manatees which frequent the marina site. These include manatee awareness signs to be posted at the marina; and an additional specific condition has been agreed upon by the Department and the applicant which specifies the size, lettering and other details of the warning signs, and the location of them within the marina, all of which will be included in a plan to be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, a permanent educational display will be located at the Yacht Club informing boaters who frequent the facility of the presence of manatees in the area and the need to minimize the impact of boats upon manatees. During construction, if a manatee is sited within 100 yards of the marina site, construction activities will cease and not resume until manatees have left the area. A handbook will be prepared concerning manatees and the effect on them of boat operation, which will be distributed to employees of the facility and to Yacht Club members and guests. This requirement and the review of it by Yacht Club members and guests will be an integral requirement in the terms of the slip leases. Additionally, no docking facilities, pilings or cleats will be located along the portions of the piers not containing boat slips in order to discourage boaters from attempting to moor at those locations, which will reduce the number of boats frequenting the marina, as that relates to manatee safety. This portion of the St. Johns River functions as a highly productive juvenile fish nursery and sports fishing area. Therefore, an examination of the marina's potential impacts upon marine productivity, fishing and recreation in the area is an important consideration in this proceeding. The discussion of this potential impact involves the same issues discussed in connection with impacts upon water quality and wildlife habitat; namely, the generation of pollutants and the impacts upon the grass beds and benthic communities directly by boat operation itself. Unrefuted testimony adduced by the applicant and the Department has established that impacts upon the fish population and upon marine productivity, fishing and recreational values will not be adverse. No deliterious effect is likely to be occasioned the fisheries and fish habitat and the habitat of other aquatic organisms in terms of juveniles or adults or to the sport fishing values of the area in which the marina will be located. Indeed, the marina structures and the shade and concealment offered by moored boats will provide additional habitat for juvenile fish, as well as provide an additional source of food because of the "fouling communities" of life forms which will be expected to grow on the pilings. These will serve as food for juvenile fish and some species of adult fish which, in turn, will enhance the food supply of predatory fish operating at an upper level in the food web. The boats and structures themselves also will operate as a source of protection for certain fish populations from predators. The Petitioners produced a fisheries biologist as an expert witness, who testified in this regard; but he acknowledged that he did not know whether noticeable impacts on conservation of fish, marine productivity and recreational values will be caused by the installation and operation of the marina. He testified in a general sense that he feared some negative impacts might result but did not feel that any such impacts would be detectable based upon testimony he heard and deferred to, including testimony that the littoral zone would not be impacted by the marina to any significant degree. He ultimately opined that the marina would likely have little impact on sports fishing. The other witness produced by the Petitioners concerning impacts upon fishing and recreational values was unable to render any expert opinion, by her own admission, because she had conducted no studies or otherwise been provided information regarding the design and proposed operation of the marina. Consequently, the testimony adduced by the applicant as to these parameters is accepted; and it has been established that the marina will not adversely impact fisheries, fish conservation, aquatic habitat, sport fishing, recreational values and marine productivity in the area involved at the project site. Regarding potential impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare and property of others, the applicant and the Department adduced expert testimony that no adverse impact regarding these interests will occur. The testimony of Petitioners' experts similarly establishes that the marina would not pose safety hazards or would otherwise give rise to any noticeable impacts upon the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. Regarding potential impacts upon navigation or the flow of water, St. Joe and the Department introduced expert testimony to establish that the marina would not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water, and it is so found. The Petitioners' introduced no evidence regarding this subject. Regarding potential impacts upon significant historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that no adverse impact as regards these resource parameters will occur. Although one of the Petitioners, in her testimony, speculated that the marina could "detract" from the William Bartram scenic highway, she was unable to specify how the marina would impact the highway or to what extent the highway was a significant, historical or archaeological resource. It is found that no such adverse impact on the William Bartram scenic highway will occur. Cumulative Impact Regarding cumulative impacts, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that the marina would not give rise to impacts which, cumulative with the impacts of other marina facilities, would be significant. The evidence establishes that there are six marinas within four miles of this marina site; two upriver, and four downriver. Due to the hydrographic circumstances in the area and the distance of the other marinas from this site, it has been demonstrated that the addition of this marina to the area will not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. Mr. Mike Allen, the expert in upland terrestrial species (not involved in this proceeding), referenced in his testimony the cumulative impacts he feared on sports and commercial fishing. Mr. Allen made it clear, however, that his reference was not to cumulative impacts caused by the marina and existing marinas but, rather, to impacts which could be brought about by many such future facilities located in this particular area. The evidence does not reflect, however, that any other marinas are conceptually contemplated or are the subject of other permit applications for this area for the future. It is thus found that no significant adverse cumulative impacts will be occasioned by the installation and operation of the subject facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joe Paper Company for the dredge and fill permit at issue be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the Department's Intent to Issue, in evidence as St. Joe Exhibit 9, and accepted by the applicant, as well as those conditions found in this Recommended Order to be necessary and supported by the evidence, are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 26 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5053 Applicant's/Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-53. Accepted, but are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter, particularly in those several instances where conditions on the grant of the permit have been recommended to be modified somewhat by the Hearing Officer in light of the totality of the preponderant evidence presented. Rejected, as unnecessary. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact The Department submitted no proposed findings of fact but, rather, adopted those submitted by the applicant/Respondent. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioners, Hoffert, presented no proposed findings of fact but, rather, a letter in the nature of final argument which has been referenced and discussed in the above Preliminary Statement to this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Cornwell, submitted a post-hearing pleading; but it contained no specific, separately-stated proposed findings of fact, which can be separated from their mere recitation and discussion of testimony in evidence and arguments such that coherent, specific rulings could be made. Petitioners, Cornwell's post-hearing pleading did not conform to the instructions given to them by the Hearing Officer at the conclusion of the hearing concerning the appropriate manner for submission of proposed findings of fact, and they were submitted late. They have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order, however, in spite of the fact that they were filed in a tardy fashion. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 T. R. Hainline, Jr., Esq. ROGERS, TOWERS, ET AL. 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 William H. Congdon, Esq. and Joanne Barone, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Room 654 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Davis Winn 3448 State Road 13 Jacksonville, FL 32259 Mary and Irv Cornwell 2652 State Road 13 Switzerland, FL 32259
The Issue Whether Building permit no. 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents William Lledo, Owner, and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., General Contractor by Monroe County violated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provisions and Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1996, Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), received Monroe County Permit 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents, William Lledo (Lledo) and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., to construct a seawall with a five-foot wide cap which would serve as a docking facility. The project is proposed to be constructed on an undeveloped piece of real property owned by Lledo. The property is known as Lot 37, Sombrero Anglers Club South Subdivision, Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. The property is located within the Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The proposed seawall/dock will not be supported by pilings or other supports and will not act to stabilize a disturbed shoreline. The shoreline at the subject property is not eroding. An eroding shoreline shows signs of the water undercutting the shoreline and contains no vegetation on the shoreline and submerged shelf. The subject property’s shoreline and adjacent submerged shelf are vegetated. The project will not be replacing a deteriorating seawall or bulkhead. The project, as proposed, requires the placement of fill in a manmade canal below the mean high water line. No principal use or structure has been established on the property nor is there any plan to construct a principal use on the property.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One, Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met. However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality, causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's Intent to Issue. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be permitted in the proposed project. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which have not been treated by heavy metals. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle, any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a result, the public health and safety are protected. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related activities in the Jupiter Sound. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses. Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs, directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any seagrasses located in the proposed project area. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely affected is also a factor to be considered. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992 and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends to die off and at its thinnest in the winter. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or endangered species of seagrasses. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain. Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants provide food for other organisms. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project, the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse affects from prop dredging. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and approximately one percent of actual coverage. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project. Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the proposed project. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are located. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including the Petitioners. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation. The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of Intent and has no objection to the proposed project. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore, benefited. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not significantly or measurably further violate the water quality. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27, 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. See, conclusion of law 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33 Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41. Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35 Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Jurgens, Esquire Post Office Box 1178 Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 1218 Mount Vernon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire Scott Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina) Lynette L. Ciardulli Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether the Department should issue a permit to the Applicant. In its request for hearing, Petitioner asserted that the proposed dock extension would constitute a navigational hazard and would cause certain adverse environmental consequences. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew its contentions as to adverse environmental consequences. The only issues raised during the course of the hearing relate to whether the proposed dock extension will result in navigational hazards to adjoining property owners.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant owns a lot which includes 52 feet of frontage along a cove which is located to the south of the Fort Pierce Inlet. Applicant presently has a dock which extends 85 feet out from his shoreline. The dock is 4 feet wide and has an 8-foot by 14-foot platform at the end, forming an "L" shape. The Applicant presently uses the dock for two of his own boats. Additionally, he rents four or five additional docking spaces. The Applicant is proposing to extend his dock an additional 72 feet out from his property. He proposes to remove the existing platform and place a 12-foot by 24-foot platform at the end of the extended dock, maintaining the "L" configuration. The Applicant has had problems mooring his own commercial fishing boat at his present dock due to shallow depths at low-water periods. He proposes to utilize the dock extension to moor one of his own boats in a deeper area and to moor a commercial fishing boat which is owned by his son. The platform at the end of the extended dock would be used for fishing by the Applicant and his family and guests. When completed, the Applicant's present dock and proposed addition would extend 157 feet northward from the Applicant's property. There is space for two boats to be moored on the east of the present dock. Applicant does not propose to allow the mooring of additional boats on the east side of the extension. Docking would be expressly prohibited on that portion of the proposed dock. The Petitioner, 1010 Seaway Drive, Inc., owns land immediately to the east of the Applicant's property. The Petitioner's property includes approximately 118 feet of water frontage. The Petitioner operates a commercial marina on its property. Petitioner has a dock which extends considerably farther to the north than the Applicant's present dock and also considerably farther than the Applicant's dock with the proposed extension. Petitioner contends that permitting the proposed extension would result in a navigational hazard for boats that are moored at Petitioner's dock. This contention is not supported by the evidence. There is more than 25 feet between the proposed extension of the Applicant's dock and any structure connected with Petitioner's dock. The closest structures are mooring poles, not the dock itself. The Applicant's dock as proposed for extension will continue to allow boats ample ingress and egress to Petitioner's dock. If the mooring and docking of boats were permitted on the east side of the Applicant's proposed extension, however, a significant navigational hazard would result. The property immediately adjacent to the Applicant's property to the west is owned by the Books. The Books' property includes 40 feet of water frontage. The Books presently moor their boat at a small dock which runs along their shoreline. The proposed extension of the Applicant's dock would require the Books to exercise more caution in docking their boat, but it would not significantly interfere with their ingress and egress. The 24-foot platform at the end of the proposed extension could cause some problems. The Applicant, however, has indicated his willingness to shorten the platform to 14 feet. Thus shortened, the proposed extension and platform will cause no significant interference with the Books' ingress and egress. Furthermore, the Books are left with adequate room to build a dock in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit for the Applicant, Robert R. Phifer, to construct an addition to his existing dock in accordance with his application. The permit should contain all of the specific conditions included in the Department's letter of intent issued October 15, 1982. In addition, the platform at the end of the proposed extension should be reduced from 24 feet to 14 feet in length. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark & Skelding Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert R. Phifer 1006 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33449 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 1300 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, The Yachting Arcade (applicant), initiated this matter when it filed an amended application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), on April 27, 1984, seeking a permit authorizing the construction of a docking facility on the eastern shore of Bethel Creek in the City of Vero Beach, Florida.1 Specifically, applicant wished to construct a commercial shoreline dock 530 feet long and six feet wide with four access docks at various locations along the shoreline. The access docks would vary in size from thirteen to sixteen feet in length and from four to ten feet in width. The dock will be situated in front of a two-story commercial structure and parking lot on 1.14 acres owned by applicant which lies between Highway A-1-A and Bethel Creek. That structure will house a restaurant and other retail establishments. A city permit for the dock was previously issued on November 17, 1983, and remains in effect at this time. According to the parties, permit approval is also required from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). However, DNR is awaiting action by DER before issuing or denying a permit. Bethel Creek is a relatively small navigable U-shaped dead-end canal connected to the Intracoastal Waterway in the Indian River in Indian River County, Florida. It is classified as a Class III water of the State. Because of continued development along the Creek, and poor flushing characteristics, the water has gradually deteriorated over the years. Most of its shoreline is bulkheaded in the vicinity of the proposed project, and it has a depth of around fifteen to twenty feet. The width of the Creek at the site of the project ranges from 120 to 195 feet and represents the most narrow part of the canal. The project is approximately one to two-tenths of a mile from the dead-end of the canal, and less than a half a mile from the opening at Indian River. In addition to applicant's commercial development, there are a number of single family residences on the Creek, a large condominium known as the Riverwalk Condominium, and eight townhouses at the deadend of the Creek. Other development may also exist but was not disclosed at hearing. There are a number of existing private docks with boats on the Creek including a four-dock marina at the end of the canal. Petitioner, Riverwalk Condominium Association, Inc., is an association of condominium owners who reside within 500 feet of the proposed activity. Under the proposal, applicant intends to limit the docking facilities to the private use of The Yachting Arcade." There will be no fuel or maintenance service for boats, and sewage disposal facilities and live-aboards will be prohibited. Shoreline improvement is to be accomplished by excavating an area landward of the dock, backfilling the area with sand and rubble, placing filter fabric over the backfill, laying sand and gravel over the fabric and revegetating the excavated/backfilled area with cordgrass and red mangroves. The theoretical capacity of the docking facility will depend on the size of the boats, but it will allow docking by up to twelve to fifteen boats of the fifty foot category at one time, or up to thirty-six smaller boats simultaneously. At the insistence of DER, the boats will be moored parallel to the Creek in an effort to not impede navigation. After receiving the original and amended applications, DER personnel made three on-site inspections of the property. These were conducted in January and May, 1984 and May,|1985. Although no water quality testing was performed, the Department found the Creek to be a viable habitat for various game and nongame species, including mullet, sheepshead, tarpon, snapper, manatees, great blue herons and egrets. The property along the shoreline was comprised of Australian pines, pepper trees and railroad vines until they were removed in June, 1985 by applicant. There has been severe erosion along the water front but this will diminish through revegetation and excavation of the bank. The construction of the dock will create only minor, short-term turbidity. The quality of the water within the Creek is now poor, but a vegetated shoreline, including mangroves, will assist in cleansing the water and improving its quality. Therefore, applicant has given reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate established water quality standards, or constitute a threat to marine life, wildlife or natural resources. According to agency rule an applicant must demonstrate that "the proposed project will not create a navigational hazard, or a serious impediment to navigation. . ." in the affected waters. Even though the dock will be built at the most narrow part of the creek, and may have as many as thirty-six boats moored at any one time, the agency expert concluded that no impediment to navigation would occur.2 However, testimony by residents on the Creek indicate that the actual navigable part of the stream is much smaller, and that boats are frequently "beached" because of the shallow nature of the waters. Since applicant will simultaneously allow as many as fifteen boats in the fifty-foot category, or thirty-six of a smaller variety, to traverse the Creek, there will be a serious impediment to navigation on the narrow navigable part of the Creek. Moreover, it will create a navigational hazard. A restriction on the number of boats to use applicant's dock at one time is not practical, and even DER omitted such a condition because of its inability to enforce this provision. Therefore, the criteria for issuance of a permit have not been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of The Yachting Arcade for a permit to construct a shoreline dock on Bethel Creek in Indian River County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact By application (Exhibit 1) dated September 15, 1978, WCMI requested a permit to dredge approximately 740 cubic yards of sovereign bottom lands in Snook Bay adjacent to upland property owned by applicant. At the same time applicant requested a lease of some 0.98 acres of submerged sovereign land, containing the area to be dredged, for the purpose of constructing a marina with docking facilities over the leased property. Following receipt of all requested information from applicant, plus objections from adjacent land owners, DNR, as the state agency acting on behalf of the Trustees Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) , held a public hearing in Naples, Florida on April 25, 1979. The Hearing Officer submitted a report following this hearing in which he recommended the lease be granted (Exhibit 4). After review DNR staff recommended granting the lease and before the Trustees took action, Petitioner requested this hearing. In the interim DER reviewed the application for a dredge and fill permit and, following a preliminary investigation, advised WCMI of its intent to deny the permit (Exhibit 8). At informal conferences with DER, WCMI revised its application to commence the dredging 25 feet from the existing seawall, reduce the amount of material to be dredged to 349 cubic yards and to move the floating dock sections further from the seawall. This revised application (Exhibit 10) was submitted to DER and, after review, DER on November 13, 1979 (Exhibit 11) issued its notice of intent to grant the requested permit. Petitioner then requested this hearing to contest the granting of this permit. The Isles of Capri was developed into a waterfront homesite project by bulkheading, dredging and filling a pristine mangrove area to provide the homesites now occupied by members of Petitioner. This project destroyed the ecosystem as it existed before the development. The area which is here proposed for lease and for a permit to dredge some 349 cubic yards therefrom is located in the originally disturbed area. Most of the homes on the Isles of Capri are built on waterfront lots and most homeowners have docks and boats. Fishing is generally considered good off the docks and in surrounding waters. The proposed marina is located in Snook Bay, a relatively small cul-de-sac-like area. On the dead end of Snook Bay, which is adjacent to the proposed marina, mangroves have been planted and the area designated as a park. Since these mangroves are rat infested, the park concept has not received general acceptance. However, the proposed marina will not adversely affect this park. Apart from the ecological problems that will allegedly be created by the leasing of the property and the dredging thereon, petitioner alleges the project will interfere with other "rights" of the homeowners of the Isles of Capri. Although this Hearing Officer has considerable doubts as to the validity of these alleged rights, the facts presented relating thereto will be first considered. WCMI owns the uplands adjacent to this submerged land and this land is zoned General Retail Commercial, which includes use as a proposed marina. Use as a marina would create less additional vehicular traffic than would any of the other 12 uses considered most likely for this land. (Testimony of Barr) The proposed marina will provide wet dock space for 32 boats and dry storage for 116 boats in sheds with the boats stacked three-high. No ramps will be provided and boats will be launched and picked up by use of a forklift at the concrete seawall. Parking space for 54 vehicles will be provided. This parking space complies with local requirements, as does WCMI's proposed construction. Collier County and the area of Collier County in the vicinity of Isles of Capri is an area of rapidly increasing population. A need for some six additional marinas has been recognized by Collier County authorities. Numerous witnesses opposed the use of WCMI property as a marina because: They do not think the site is suitable for a marina, and a much smaller marina would be preferred. Installation of a marina would increase boat traffic, thereby increasing the risk of boat collisions, increase wake action which might damage seawalls, disrupt the peace and quiet now enjoyed by these residents, and increase the possibility of boats striking manatees. Property values in the vicinity of the proposed marina and elsewhere in the Isles of Capri might decline. Operation of a marina would increase the noise level, thereby disturbing occupants of residences closest to the proposed marina. Vehicular traffic would be greatly increased on the Isles of Capri once the marina commences operation. Most of these objections are beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal. This property has been zoned for the use proposed and if this use is inappropriate, the proper recourse is with the local zoning authorities. The credible evidence submitted is that the operation of the marina would increase boat traffic in and out of Snook Bay some 20 round-trips per day and this increase will create and insignificant additional risk of collision with other boats or with the occasional manatee that is sighted. While most of this traffic will use the deeper channel that follows the seawalls and boat docks of residents, an alternate channel is available for use by boaters with local knowledge of its characteristics. Even if all traffic used the deeper channel, no serious hazard to navigation would thereby result. No credible evidence was presented that the increased boat traffic caused by the marina would increase the damage to a properly constructed seawall. Navigation of these waters is a right to be jealously guarded. If wave damage results, local authorities have jurisdiction to establish speed or wake restrictions. Furthermore, the more credible evidence presented was that at the Isles of Capri more subsidence of soil behind the seawalls is caused by tidal action than by wake action. No credible evidence was presented that the operation of the proposed marina would decrease property values. Even if this could be shown, such a use would be consistent with the usage for which this property is zoned. There are two marinas across the street from WCMI's proposed marina and no evidence was presented that the operation of ties smaller marinas affected property values. The uncontradicted evidence that was submitted was that property values on the Isles of Capri have increased at a rate as great as, if not greater than, land values elsewhere in Collier County. The roads on Isles of Capri are presently operating far below capacity and the additional traffic expected to be generated by the proposed marina will have no significant impact on these roads, nor will the construction of the marina create any vehicular safety problems. Petitioner's contention that the construction and operation of the marina will create additional pollution because of septic tank, oils and greases, and water runoff from impervious surfaces is not well-placed. It is not well-placed in the first instance because this is not the proper forum in which to air these complaints. Local health and safety ordinances regulate the installation of septic tanks, installation of fueling facilities and retention of water falling on the property. Secondly, the evidence presented here is that WCMI will comply with all regulations regarding septic tanks, no live-aboard boats will be moored at the marina other than temporarily for fuel or supplies, fuel tanks will be underground on the upland area, provided with proper protection and insulation, and the fuel will be dispensed by hose from the fueling dock by experienced personnel. WCMI will provide containment booms and retrieving material to take care of the accidental spill that might occur. Collier County Ordinance requires the first 1-inch of rainfall be retained on the property and WCMI will comply with this requirement. From the testimony of the numerous residents who testified, the primary concern of most of those who object to the proposed installation is that "their" waters will become more available to people living elsewhere and this will somehow detract from the use and enjoyment of those waters by these residents. If access to the Isles of Capri is facilitated for people living elsewhere by the installation of this marina, these waters will become more crowded, resulting in less fish per resident, and this aquatic preserve will become less private and more available to the general public. These residents purchased their homesites because of the waterfront characteristics and the quietness and solitude of the area. Facilitating access by nonresidents will necessitate sharing these waters with these nonresidents, thereby detracting from the enjoyment residents hoped to retain undiminished forever. The allegations of Petitioner that merit the most serious consideration in both of these applications of WCMI involves those relating to the ecosystem. Petitioner contends that the proposed dredging will adversely affect the ecosystem and this requires denial of the dredge-and-fill permit. Without the permit the lease would be useless. Petitioner also contends the granting of the lease would be contrary to the public interest. WCMI's original application was to dredge from the seawall seaward some 60 feet until the desired depth contour was reached. Also, floating concrete docks would be adjacent to the seawall for berthing sites. When an inspection of the area disclosed the bottom grasses were heaviest from the seawall out to about 30 feet, the applicant was issued the Notice of Intent to Deny by DER because of these bottom grasses and the shading that would be caused by the floating docks. WCMI then proposed to do no dredging for the first 25 feet from the seawall, except for two areas 30 feet and 36 feet wide needed to launch boats, and also to move the floating docks 25 feet from the seawall so as not to shade the grassy areas. As noted above, the site under consideration was severely disturbed by the initial dredging which destroyed the original grassbeds at this site. Some of these grasses have now returned but the coverage is sparse and patchy. From the seawall out to about 30 feet the grass is Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass. Respondent's investigations and studies revealed only these two grasses. Petitioner's biologist who performed studies similar to those done by Respondent found halophila in the deeper waters (up to five feet) extending out as far as 60 feet from the seawall. Halophila is a more ephemeral grass that grows in deeper depths than Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass and is often found in previously dredged areas. The area proposed for dredging comprises some 1200 square meters, and seagrasses cover about one-fourth of the dredge area. Sample cores taken by Petitioner's expert in October while the more luxuriant summer growth predominated showed some 1600 blades of grass per square meter, while the winter sample taken by WCMI expert showed 467 blades per meter. In the 320 square meters of seagrasses in the area a total biomass of invertebrates was found to be 17 pounds. Using generally accepted conversion rates and invertebrate reproduction cycles to convert this biomass to fish, this weight of invertebrate biomass could be converted into between 2 and 10 pounds of fish annually. Removal of the seagrasses will remove feeding grounds and hiding areas for some types of aquatic animals and also take away the type of fish that inhabit such areas. On the other hand, the piling and other docking structures that will be installed will attract sessile organisms such as oysters, barnacles, etc. which currently attach themselves to rocks and mangrove roots in the vicinity. The biomass or weight of these organisms is likely to equal or exceed those to be lost by dredging away the seagrasses. The different types of fish will be attracted to the area where the shellfish and other attaching animals congregate than will be attracted to grassy bottoms, the change is not significant from a quality or quantity of fish point of view. The area to be dredged is an area that has partially recovered from its earlier destruction and there is no reason to believe a similar recovery will not recur after the dredging here proposed is completed. No evidence was presented that a collision between a boat and a manatee has ever occurred in the waters in the vicinity of the Isles of Capri. Any conclusion that such an incident is likely to occur because of increased boat traffic when the proposed marina is in operation would be sheer speculation. Furthermore, Collier County does not contain any of those designated waters wherein special manatee protection rules are to be set up. Nor is Snook Bay one of those areas where a concentration of manatees is likely to occur.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner should be assessed for use taxes, interest and penalties related to the purchase of certain fuel-pumping equipment, on which sales tax was allegedly unpaid to the supplier. It must also be determined whether the placement of storage tanks, pumps, and appurtenant fueling equipment at the Destin Marina constituted a license or lease of the real property upon which that equipment was placed and, therefore, whether the $.15 per gallon fee paid to the marina owner for pumping and selling the Petitioner's fuel should have been the subject of sales tax or, conversely, whether the placement of the pumping equipment and fuel at the marina site was a bailment, for purposes of the rule cited below and, therefore, a non-taxable transaction.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, V.T. Leasing, at times pertinent hereto, was a partnership with partners, Mr. C. S. Valmus and George Threadgill. It was created at the request of Mr. William Ming, who was the owner of Destin Marina at times pertinent hereto. Mr. Ming had agreed to purchase marine fuels from the wholesale fuel dealership maintained by Mr. Valmus and Mr. Threadgill, but needed another entity to purchase and have installed the necessary tanks, pumps and appurtenances at his marina. Consequently, in order to effect their arrangement, a contract was drafted and executed between Mr. Valmus and Mr. Threadgill on behalf of the Petitioner herein, and Mr. Ming on behalf of the Destin Marina. That contract provided by its term that the Petitioner, the "supplier", and Destin Marina, the "buyer", would engage in a business relationship whereby the supplier agreed to furnish and install the equipment necessary for the buyer to be able to operate a marina fueling facility, including gasoline and diesel (fuel). The Petitioner agreed to furnish dispensers, hoses, tanks, piping, and related equipment and appurtenances necessary for self-service sales and to keep an adequate supply of fuel and inventory at the marina for sale to marina customers. Destin Marina agreed to use its best efforts to sell the fuel for which it would be paid a commission of $.15 per gallon for each gallon of fuel sold. The Petitioner agreed to check the tanks periodically and see that the tanks were kept filled and to determine the amount of gallons of fuel sold, whereupon the Petitioner would collect from Destin Marina all monies and valid credit card vouchers for the retail sales, less the $.15 commission due to the marina. The Petitioner was to retain ownership of the fuel, the money and credit card vouchers for fuel sold and would set the retail selling price for the fuel. The contract was to extend for five years from the date of its execution with extensions being provided for thereafter. The Petitioner, in the contract, was granted a right of ingress and egress to the marina property to deliver fuel, collect for fuel, and to remove any equipment not paid for under the terms of the contract. Destin Marina agreed not to encumber the equipment or consigned fuel inventory owned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was responsible for reporting and paying all taxes on fuel sold. There is no dispute concerning any fuel taxes due in this proceeding. The agreement further provided that, should the marina be closed for 90 consecutive days, except due to an act of God, Destin Marina agreed to pay for the equipment at a schedule set forth in the agreement, if so demanded by the Petitioner. The amount due under that contingency for the first year would be $47,000.00 and declined every year thereafter to a valuation of $27,000.00 in the fifth year of the agreement's operation. At the end of the agreement's term, the equipment would become the property of Destin Marina, the Petitioner taking the position that due to exposure to the elements and salt water, at the end of five years, the equipment would be worth little to it. The Panhandle Pump Transaction In order to fulfill its responsibilities under the above-discussed agreement, the Petitioner purchased the pumps, tanks, piping, and other related equipment necessary to install the fueling station at the marina from the Panhandle Pump Company (Panhandle). The Petitioner produced at hearing various invoices showing gross dollar amounts paid to Panhandle for the equipment involved in this proceeding. Those invoices do not indicate whether any sales tax was paid to Panhandle on the purchase of the equipment. Prior to this hearing, the Respondent attempted to ascertain whether sales tax had been paid, and in what amounts, from the Petitioner and apparently made at least one inquiry of Panhandle in an effort to find out if sales tax had been paid to Panhandle, as well as the total amount paid for the equipment by the Petitioner. Witness Henderson, the auditor for the Respondent in this matter, established that he was unable to determine the original cost of the equipment paid to Panhandle by the Petitioner. In that event, the Respondent used the provision of Section 212.12(6)(d), Florida Statutes, as the basis for its audit, which provides that if the taxpayer cannot or does not supply original cost and tax information concerning a transaction, then the "best information available" may be used. During an audit, the Respondent is not required to inquire of third parties with respect to the tax liability of an audited taxpayer. This is because the auditor for the Respondent is not free to initiate an audit of a third party in order to confirm or deny information provided by the taxpayer. Any inquiry into another taxpayer's tax records can only be done under strict compliance with the confidentiality requirements in Section 213.053, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was unable to determine the price which the Petitioner paid for the equipment. The Respondent requested the information pertaining to the equipment price of the Petitioner and even requested a copy of the sales invoice for the pumps from Panhandle itself, but neither the Petitioner nor Panhandle ever supplied that information prior to hearing. During the hearing, the Petitioner's evidence in the form of the invoices only shows the gross amount paid for the equipment and does not depict what, if any portion of that, might have been sales tax. It does not show that sales tax was paid on the equipment. Only the Petitioner's testimony, through Mr. Valmus, asserts that the sales tax on the equipment was paid to Panhandle. Mr. Valmus states that he is certain that the prices shown on the invoice included sales tax, but he presented no substantiating evidence for that statement. Because the sales tax has not been shown to have been paid on the purchase of the tanks, pumps and other equipment from Panhandle, the Petitioner, the purchaser of the equipment, was assessed use tax. The Respondent, however, because the exact price could not be determined, used the valuation placed on the equipment in the first year "buy out" figure depicted in the agreement between the Petitioner and Destin Marina (Mr. Ming). That value of $47,000.00 is thus based upon the valuation of the equipment set by the parties to that agreement themselves. This valuation was the only readily identifiable figure by which to value the transaction between Panhandle and the Petitioner. It would be unreasonable to require the Respondent to supply the missing parts of the taxpayer's records, in order to arrive at a valuation figure for purposes of calculating tax due. This would encourage fraud and tax evasion if taxpayers were allowed to benefit from inadequate records. If in doubt, a taxpayer could simply lose or misplace records and propose a more advantageous number to the Respondent, and the Respondent would be forced to attempt to disprove that contention. The only records of this transaction, the receipts for the partial payments to Panhandle, support the conclusion that the tax was not paid. Section 212.01(2), Florida Statutes, requires that receipts for purchased items separately state the sales tax paid. Since this was not done, the Respondent concluded justifiably, in the absence of other records, that no sales tax was paid on the transaction. Consequently, it has assessed use tax on the Petitioner, the purchaser of the equipment from Panhandle. The Destin Marina Transaction Pursuant to the terms of the exclusive supply and purchase contract, referenced in the above findings of fact, the Petitioner agreed to furnish, install and maintain the fuel-pumping equipment to be located at the Destin Marina on property owned by the Destin Marina or Mr. Ming. The Petitioner also agreed to insure an adequate supply of fuel inventory at the marina for sale to boating customers. The Petitioner agreed to gauge the tanks every two weeks, determine the amount of gallons sold, and collect all monies and credit card vouchers, less the $.15 commission to be paid to the Destin Marina operator, Mr. Ming. The Destin Marina, Mr. Ming or his agents, were responsible for actually dispensing the fuel from customers and collecting monies or credit card vouchers from customers in payment for the fuel. The agreement further provided that at the end of the five-year period, the depreciated equipment would become the property of Mr. Ming and/or the Destin Marina. The Petitioner owned and depreciated the equipment on its books and records during the term of the agreement. Due to salt water corrosion, the equipment would be of little value after the five-year period. The Petitioner serviced and maintained the equipment subject to the agreement between it and Destin Marina. It never relinquished exclusive control of the equipment to the Destin Marina. The agreement between Destin Marina and the Petitioner specifically states that the "supplier" (the Petitioner) should at all times have the right of ingress and egress to the marina property to deliver fuel, collect for the fuel, or to remove any equipment not paid for under the conditions of the contract. The overall terms of the agreement show that the right of access, or "ingress and egress", for those purposes, also included the right for the Petitioner to come on the premises to service the equipment. The marina, however, operated the equipment during dispensing of fuel, on a day-to-day basis. Thus, the evidence shows that the two parties to the agreement had joint control over the equipment. The Respondent showed, through the testimony of its auditor, Mr. Henderson, that the amounts assessed against the Petitioner, at the time of hearing, were for use tax on the equipment of $2,820.00, and tax on the fuel commissions of $2,638.07, for a total of $5,458.07. A penalty was assessed in the amount of $1,364.52, and interest accrued through April 15, 1994 amounted to $3,174.48, for a grand total of $9,997.07, with interest accruing from April 15, 1994 at $1.79 per day. The use tax on the equipment referenced herein concerned the transaction involving the equipment purchase from Panhandle. The Respondent determined that the agreement between the Petitioner and Destin Marina, whereby the Petitioner would pay a $.15 commission per gallon to the marina, constituted a "license to use real property", pursuant to Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, and Rule 12A-1.007, Florida Administrative Code. Although the parties were not shown to have intended that this arrangement amount to a lease agreement, the Respondent interpreted the agreement in that fashion and assessed sales tax due on the $.15 per gallon commission amounts paid to Destin Marina, as if they were lease rental. This is related to the Respondent's position that the arrangement could not constitute a bailment because the Petitioner maintained control over the property for the life of the agreement, never gave up title to it, performed all maintenance and depreciated the equipment on its books and records during the five-year period of the agreement. Moreover, at the end of the agreement, the property would not revert back to the possession of the Petitioner but, rather, to the ownership and possession of the Destin Marina. Although it is not found that exclusive control of the equipment remained in the Petitioner, the parties did at least have joint control over the equipment, rather than exclusive control being delivered to the Destin Marina, the putative bailee.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Revenue upholding the assessment of V.T. Leasing for sales and use tax, as well as applicable interest and penalties, as set forth in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner submitted no Proposed Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-27. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Constantine S. Valmus 12346 Ailanthus Drive Pensacola, FL 32506 Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact D.S.I. Forms, Inc. is a for-profit corporation with facilities in Palatka, Florida. It is the owner of a river- front house known as the "DSI Lodge," which is the location of the boat dock at issue here. The DSI Lodge has an existing boat dock similar to those of other waterfront homes in the area along this section of St. Johns River, which is a Class III Florida Water.1 The area is predominantly single family residential, but is not so restricted by zoning ordinance. The DSI Lodge is used as a weekend and holiday retreat by the owner of D.S.I. Forms, Inc., who resides in Atlanta, Georgia, and by his business and personal guests. Although the DSI Lodge has a business character, there is no charge to guests for using lodge or dock facilities. The proposed DSI dock extension would add a two-boat covered slip measuring 20 by 22 feet to the end of the existing dock. Since DSI only seeks mooring facilities for one additional boat,2 it has agreed with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove its inside boat slip. Although DNR was not a party to this proceeding, the Applicant's stated intent to remove a portion of the existing dock should be reflected in any permit issued by DER. The existing dock is approximately 700 square feet in surface area. With the application as now framed, the total surface area would exceed 1,100 square feet. However, with removal of the inside slip, the proposed dock area would apparently increase to less than 1,000 square feet, and thus may be exempt from DER permitting altogether.3 Petitioners presented a series of grievances concerning use of the DSI Lodge by inconsiderate guests. These complaints included discharging a rifle and fireworks, high speed operation of power boats adjacent to the river's edge (bulkhead) and congestion of boating activity resulting from numerous guests using the DSI facilities during holiday periods. The careless or congested boating activity may affect the quality of life for DSI Lodge neighbors and endanger wildlife such as manatee which sometimes inhabit these waters. However, it was not shown that the proposed dock extension would affect these environmental considerations since D.S.I. Forms, Inc. already owns and operates the boat which would be accommodated by the additional slip (see footnote 2 above). Further, the testimony of the DER field representative established that the presence of the extended dock, as well as its construction, would not degrade water quality.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing the proposed permit to D.S.I. Forms, Inc. with an added condition requiring removal of the existing inside boat-slip. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985.
