Findings Of Fact The Application On or about November 8, 1994, Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, applied for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043. As proposed, the dock would consist of: 237' of five foot wide access pier; a terminal dock 45' long and 5.5' wide; and eight finger piers 20' long and three feet wide. All of the structures were proposed to be three feet above mean high water (MHW). Normal construction procedures would be used to "jet" pilings into place, including the use of turbidity screens. As proposed, the dock would provide nine slips for the use of the owners of the nine lots in the Swarts' subdivided property, known as Sunset Place. There would be no live-aboards allowed, and there would be no fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities or any other boating supplies or services provided on or at the dock. Under the proposal, verti-lifts would be constructed for all of the slips at a later date. (When boat owners use verti- lifts, there is less need to paint boat bottoms with toxic anti-fouling paint.) As part of the application, the Swarts offered to grant a conservation easement encumbering approximately 400' of shoreline. The Intent to Issue Because Little Sarasota Bay is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and because of concerns regarding the maintenance of its environmental quality, the DEP required that the Swarts submit additional information for review in connection with their application. Specifically, the DEP wanted them to perform a hydrographic study to assure adequate flushing at the site and a bathymetric survey to assure adequate water depths and minimal impacts on seagrasses. After review of the additional information, the DEP gave notice of its Intent to Issue the permit, with certain modifications and conditions. The Intent to Issue would require that the "most landward access pier . . . be extended an additional 15 feet to avoid the mooring of watercraft within seagrasses." It also would require the decking of the main access pier (155' long), which would cross seagrass beds, be elevated to a minimum of five feet above mean high water (MHW). (This would reduce shading and minimize impacts on the seagrasses.) The Intent to Issue included specific measures for the protection of manatees during and after construction. The Intent to Issue specifically prohibited hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance at the facility. The Intent to Issue specified the width of the 400' long conservation easement (30', for an area of approximately 0.27 acres) and required the Swarts to "plant a minimum of 50 planting units of Spartina patens and 50 planting units of Spartina alterniflora at appropriate elevations imediately waterward of the revetment along the northern portion of the property . . . concurrrent with the construction of the permitted structure." It specified planting procedures and included success criteria for the plantings (an 85 percent survival rate). The Objection On or about March 30, 1995, Raymond and Norma Komarek, the owners of property next to the Swart property, objected in writing to the "magnitude" of the proposed dock facility. They complained that the proposed dock facility "will not enhance anyone's view, but it will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore, even possible pollution from up to 35 foot boats." They continued: "We prefer not to live next to a Marina. This appears to be a commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." They conceded that their concerns for manatees had been addressed, but they raised questions regarding the impact on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers. They objected to restrictions on "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters." They also alleged that the proposed dock facility would be a navigation hazard, especially in fog. The Komareks suggest that the three exempt 125' docks to which the Swarts are entitled under Sarasota County regulations, with the two boats allegedly allowed at each, should be adequate and are all the Swarts should be allowed. The Komareks' objections conclude by questioning the alleged results of alleged "turbidity tests" showing that there is "good action" (apparently on the ground that they believe Little Sarasota Bay has "declined") and by expressing concern about the cumulative impact of future dock facilities if granting the Swart application sets a precedent. The Komareks' Evidence The Komareks were able to present little admissible evidence at the final hearing in support of their objections. Much of the environmental evidence they attempted to introduce was hearsay. Moreover, at best, most of it concerned Little Sarasota Bay in general, as opposed to the specific location of the proposed docking facility. The alleged "turbidity tests" called into question in the Komareks' objection apparently refer to the hydrographic study done at the request of the DEP. The evidence the Komareks attempted to utilize on this issue apparently were the kind of general information about Little Sarasota Bay on which the DEP had relied in requesting the hydrographic study. There was no other evidence presented to contradict the results of the Swart study. While the proposed dock facility would project into the view from the Komarek property looking towards the north (and from the property of the neighbors to the north looking towards the south), there was no other evidence that the proposed dock facility "will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore . . .." "[P]ollution from up to 35 foot boats" is "possible," but there was no evidence that pollution is probable or, if it occurred, that the kind and amount of pollution would be environmentally significant. The application clearly is a "commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." But the use of the dock facility would be personal to the owners of lots in Sunset Place; the use would not be public. The Komareks presented no evidence "regarding the impact of the dock facility on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers." Clearly, the dock facility would extend approximately 250' into Little Sarasota Bay. But there was no other evidence either that it would restrict "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters" or that it would be a navigation hazard. (There was no evidence to support the suggestion made at final hearing that an access dock built five feet above MHW would be a dangerous "attractive nuisance" or that it would be more hazardous than one built three feet above MHW.) Evidence Supporting DEP Intent to Issue Very little pollution can be expected from the actual construction of the dock facility. Primarily, there is the potential for temporary turbidity during construction; but the use of turbidity screens will help minimize this temporary impact. The conditions volunteered in the Swart application, together with modification and additional conditions imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue, limit other potential pollutant sources to oil and gas spillage from the boats using the dock facility. The Swarts' hydrographic study demonstrates that, notwithstanding relatively poor circulation in the general area of Little Sarasota Bay in which the proposed dock facility is located, there is adequate flushing at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility, at least to the limited extent to which pollutants may be expected to be introduced into Little Sarasota Bay from construction activities and use of the facility with the conditions volunteered in the Swart application and imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue. A primary goal of the Komareks' objection is to "downsize" their neighbors' proposed dock facility. They object to its length and its height above MHW. Presumably, they believe that "downsizing" the Swart dock facility would improve their view. If it could not be "downsized," they would prefer that the Swart application be denied in its entirety and that three exempt docks, accommodating two boats each, be built in place of the proposed facility. Ironically, the evidence was that if the Komareks' primary goal is realized, more environmental harm would result. The evidence was that a shorter, lower dock would do more harm to seagrasses, and three exempt docks (even if limited to two boats each) would have approximately three times the environmental impact. Indeed, based on environmental considerations, the DEP Intent to Issue required the Swarts to lengthen the access dock proposed in their application by 15 feet and elevate it by two feet. Lengthening the access dock would move the part of the facility where boats would be moored to deeper water with fewer seagrasses. In that way, fewer seagrasses would be impacted by construction, fewer would be shaded by the mooring of boats, and fewer would be subject to the risk of prop scarring. In addition, the risk of scarring would be reduced to the extent that the water was deeper in the mooring area. Finally, DEP studies have shown that elevating the access dock would reduce shading impact on seagrasses under and adjacent to the dock. Besides having more than three times the environmental impact, exempt docks would have none of the conditions included in the DEP Intent to Issue. Verti-lifts would not be required. Methods of construction would not be regulated by the DEP. Measures for the protection of manatees, before and after construction, would not have to be taken. Hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance would not be prohibited. Live-aboards, fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities and other boating supplies and services would not be prohibited (although County regulation may prohibit some of these activities). Finally, there would be no conservation easement and no planting of seagrasses. The Komareks suggest that County regulation may prohibit construction in accordance with the DEP Intent to Issue. But that would be a question for the County to determine in its own proceedings. All things considered, the DEP Intent to Issue 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 enter a Final Order granting the application of Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, (the Swarts) for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043, with the modifications and conditions set out in the Notice of Intent. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 29th day of September, 1995.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1982.
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 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Association, represents 1,053 condominium homeowners located in the Old Port Cove Community, a residential development in Palm Beach County, Florida. Old Port Cove Community consists of seven separate condominium buildings and associations. Many of the individual condominium homes/apartments within the complex border on arid overlook the Old Port Cove area of north Lake Worth which is the location of the two existing marinas operated by the Respondent Applicant and the site of the proposed marina expansion. The water in question is an essential part of the residential community and was, in many cases, a major factor considered by the homeowners purchasing in this community. At the time of development, going back a minimum of seven years, property owners were advised by the developer/Applicant (or its predecessor) that the marinas constructed or to be constructed would be for the exclusive use of the residents of the condominium apartment houses within the complex. On or about March 12, 1986, Respondent DER, received an application from the Applicant for a dredge and fill permit for the construction of a commercial addition to the northernmost marina currently existing at Old Port Cove Complex. The new construction was to consist of 1 pier of a total length of 911 feet with 50 boat slips and 26 finger piers. The new slips will be 45 feet in length of which 15 feet will consist of pier and the remaining 30 feet of open water terminated by a piling. The main pier would extend in a northeast direction from the easternmost point of the existing north pier for a total of 171 feet, then turn northwest for a total of 490 feet, and then turn southwest for an additional 250 feet to enclose an area of water leaving a 90 foot wide space for entry of boats into the enclosed area. The application for the permit contains as an attachment thereto an engineering drawing depicting the proposed marina expansion and its relationship to the existing marina. This expansion was proposed because of the growing need for boat slips in the area. The operator, currently providing a total of 289 slips in both marinas, (197 in the south and 92 in the north) proposes to construct 50 new slips for pleasure boats from 25 to 120 feet in length. Applicant proposes and commits itself to utilize the new slips for sailboats only. Notwithstanding the fact that there are approximately 1,261 additional slips available within a one mile area of the proposed site, the applicant contends it has been continuously turning away applicants for slip rentals in its facilities. If approved, the proposed new facility will constitute an approximate 4 percent increase in the total number of boat slips in the area, not counting the free moorings offshore in the Federal mooring in the center of the cove. Applicant presently operates one diesel fuel pump at the South Marina. No other fueling facilities exist at either marina operated by Applicant nor are any additional fueling facilities intended. Applicant has also entered into a contract with a local fuel spill control company to provide spill cleanup if necessary. At the present time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the North or South Marina. Applicant proposes to install sewage facilities as a part of the approval package. Leasing agreements currently in effect require all boats using the marinas to certify they have U.S. Coast Guard approved heads on board before being allowed to dock at the marina. This requirement is not actively enforced, however. Most boats utilizing the facility are pleasure/non-commercial fishing boats. Individuals, mainly residents of the apartment complex, use the docks for fishing but there is some question as to the nature and availability of the fish population in the area. Manatees do frequent the area, however, not necessarily as far north as the marina in any great numbers, but several hundred yards to the south, congregating at times around the entrance to the intracoastal waterway which forks off to the northwest somewhat south of the south marina. Subsequent to the receipt of the Association's Petition herein, DER had numerous water quality tests performed and requested certain assurances from the Applicant designed to remedy or rectify numerous objections made by the Association in its Petition. Thereafter, on February 16, 1987, DER issued a Revised Intent to Issue in this case in which it addressed the Association's concerns and specified certain conditions to be included in the permit to protect the water quality and biological resources in the project area. These conditions included: A prohibition against commencement of any excavation or other construction activity prior to receipt of evidence of permission from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or DNR; A requirement for notification of the Division of Archives in the event any historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered within the project site; Provision for permanent sewage pump-out facilities to be provided at the south marina to replace portable facilities currently available, within 90 days of permit issuance, and the provision of temporary sewage pump-out facilities at the north marina which shall be in place and functioning prior to any work being commenced under the permit; The requirement for use of turbidity screens around the project site during construction to remain in place until turbidity behind. The screens falls to an acceptable level; The placing of educational signs, the content of which shall be coordinated with DNR, at both the north and south marinas, informing boaters that manatee may be in the area and requesting that care be taken; The posting of manatee warning signs in both marinas; The establishment of idle speed and no wake zones in both marinas and the access channels; A provision that permanent liveaboards connect their vessels with permanent sewage hook-ups at all times when the vessel is docked; and A provision against refueling facilities at the expanded north marina. Applicant and DER are satisfied that the conditions imposed by the terms of the Revised Intent to Issue satisfy all the current requirements of the statute and rules relevant to dredge and fill permits for projects of this nature. Many of the apartment owners, banding together as the Petitioner Association herein, strongly resist approval of the permit to construct the new marina for numerous reasons. They contend, first, that the construction of the new marina and the greater number of boats resulting therefrom, constitute a threat to the manatee population in the area. The Association is also concerned with water quality in the area, fire safety, wake damage, and noise pollution as a result of the proposal. Other considerations of the residents include parking and a diminishment in the resale value of their property. Several of the residents have seen manatee in the area swimming in the waters adjacent to the marina and in the "key" area on the other side of the peninsula. Many have scars on them and appear to have been injured by collisions with boats. Several residents have seen trash and debris in the water and have observed boats traveling at a high rate of speed just outside the existing marinas. In addition to debris, residents have seen oil and grease floating on the water and contend that the proposed wave baffles hanging down into the water from the extended pier will interfere with the natural flushing action of the winds and tides. Many of these same individuals complain of an extremely bad odor coming from the marina and they have observed boat owners either pumping their bilges directly into the marina water or washing their boats with detergents which are allowed to run overboard into the water. At least one resident, speaking for others as well, referred to a green space, an area of grass outside and between the buildings and the water. Originally, this area was supposed to be gardens and a recreational area for the residential complex, and the yacht club was to be a secondary appurtenance for the property owners. Now, with apartment owners making up no more than 10 percent of the occupants of the marina slips, for it seems as though the apartment residence owners are being shunted to the background and commercial activities, including the marina, are becoming paramount in the eyes of the applicant which still operates it. This green space is now proposed to be converted by the applicant to parking for the use of the marina patrons; all to the detriment of the apartment owners. There is some evidence that boat owners utilize the grounds of the apartment complex as a place to walk their dogs for canine toilet purposes and there is some evidence that numerous liveaboard boat owners, who do not have adequate toilet and bathing facilities on board their boats, utilize the pool, showers, and toilets ordinarily reserved for residents of the apartment complex. Noise from parties on the boats is often both excessive and disturbing and to the knowledge of at least some of those testifying on behalf of the Association, efforts by security personnel employed by the condominium associations to get the boat owners to curb the noise and disruption have been totally unsuccessful. One resident summed up the feelings of his co-owners when he indicated that these various factors translate to property value and because of the current situation with pollution, noise, lack of security, and the increasing commercialism, the result has been a substantial drop in property value. This witness feels that the more slips that are made available, along with their related annoyances, the less the value of the individual apartments will be. All feel that the addition of 50 more slips will increase the existing problems and none of the residents who testified for the association were of the opinion that the developer's controls will be adequate to alleviate or minimize the untenable situation which they now face. However, there was no evidence presented to substantiate the layman opinion of reduction in property value and it cannot be said, therefore, that this has or will really happen, and the amount of loss. Turning to the issue of water quality as effected by refueling operations and sewage disposal at the marina, the question of fueling facilities was not raised by the Association other than to object basically because of the potential for fuel spills. Applicant and DER contend that this problem should be taken care of through the contracting for the services of Glasgow Equipment Service, providing for 24 hour emergency response for fuel spills of any type. It is unreasonable to expect that a marina providing dockage for potentially as many as 289 motor vessels can be expected to be totally spill free. If proper refueling procedures are followed, and there is no evidence to indicate that they would not be, the incidence of fuel spills should be minimal and the contract with the clean-up service providing for around the clock response in case of a spill, appears to be adequate action to remedy the effects of any spill. There have been very few fuel spills in the history of the marina operation. The most recent resulted in a spill of no more than 3 to 5 gallons and clean-up was successfully accomplished with little damage. The Association made much of the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the offender and that the boat in question is still an occupant of the marina. This incident is still under investigation, however, and final action has not yet been taken. At the current time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the north or south marina. The applicants propose to install a pump-out sewage facility tied to each vessel berth in the south marina and to provide a portable pumpout facility which can be rolled to a particular spot to meet the needs of any vessel at the north marina. The Applicant has agreed to fund the project completely and has agreed to the special conditions contained in the Revised Intent to Issue regarding the pumping stations. Applicant and DER both arranged for testing of the water quality at the north marina to determine the current condition of the water. Dr. John D. Wang, an expert in coastal hydrodynamics on the faculty at the University of Miami, is familiar with the site of the proposed expansion and visited it last in November, 1986. At that time, he did a study on the flow exchange caused by tides and wind over a two day period. As a part of his test, he placed instruments in the water to take measurements of water motion, temperature, and salinity on the outer side of the current pier at the north marina and inside that marina at different depths. On the first day of the test, the tide was an ebb tide (receding) pulling water out of the marina area. However, at the same time, the wind was from the southeast which directly opposed the tide action. At the surface, the drogues (instruments) followed the wind. Those deeper in the water went with the tide. When the tide came in the next day, the drogues went to the north under the power of both wind and tide. Dr. Wang's experiment confirmed not only that the water moved in and out of the marina area, but also that the water circulated clockwise north along the west side of Lake Worth and south on eastern side. Dr. Wang thought this might be due to wind force, but regardless of the cause, it was a good indication that water was exchanged in the area. Dr. Wang concluded that the water in the marina was completely taken out within one hour and joined the circulatory pattern, being replaced by other water. The baffles placed on the piers to reduce wave motion will have some effect on the water circulation tending to reduce surface flow, but these baffles will not prevent the exchange of water due to circulation because they are limited to the top three feet of the water. In Dr. Wang's opinion, they may have some positive effect on circulation by preventing wave water from flowing back out. By the same token, the presence of boats in the marina will have but a marginal effect on water exchange. The draft of the boats utilizing this area is not much more than the wave baffles and there will still be ample water underneath to permit flow and exchange. In fact, in Dr. Wang's opinion, the location of this marina is almost optimal. By virtue of the fact that it is out in the open, water can flow freely through the area and no dredging is required. The flat, sloping bottom promotes water exchange. No evidence was presented to contradict this opinion and it is hereby accepted. Additional tests on water quality were run by Dr. Paul R. McGinnes, head of an independent consultant laboratory specializing in water quality and motion who visited the site several times doing three separate studies of dissolved oxygen, salinity, and water temperature at various depths and at different hours. As a part of his examinations, he also looked for oil (pollutants), and bacterial components. The water subject to tests for bacterial components was taken from the top foot at several locations in each of the three studies. In the 1983 study, tests showed fecal and coliform bacteria were present in sufficient quantities to constitute a few violations. In 1986, when he sampled for fecal bacteria only, the count was very low. In the 1987 test of samples taken twenty times over 24 hours, the fecal bacteria count was, in each case, within state limits. As to heavy metals, in 1983, levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, and zinc were not present. There was no evidence as to current levels. As to oils and greases, all studies showed very little present (below 5mg per litre) and what grease was there could consist of animal or vegetable fats. This is considered unlikely and it is found there is petroleum product in the water, though in insignificant quantities. Regarding dissolved oxygen, all tests showed compliance with state standards. Levels were comparable to other areas of Lake Worth. Dr. McGinnes is generally familiar with the state standards for Class III waters and believes the construction and operation of the new 50 slips at the north marina will in no way result in violation of state water quality standards. His opinion as to this construction is based on his tests, his conversations with applicant's personnel, and his experience with other similar projects. Granted, boats do tend to leak oil and that situation will raise the oil level in the immediate area of the leak. However, not all boats leak in all marinas and what leaks there are will tend to dissipate to a safe level within a very short period of time. In February, 1983, the coliform bacteria in the south marina were higher than in the north marina or in Lake forth in general. However, coliform bacteria does not appear to be a major problem in this case. In response to cross examination, Dr. McGinnes concluded that even if five boats dumped raw sewage in the north marina, it would not have any major negative impact on the overall water quality there. It would, of course, affect the sample taken in the area immediately after dumping, but not the overall quality over the long run. Dr. McGinnes' last sample was taken in February, 1987, which is a time of highest use. The water quality in and around the marina is generally as good as in the northern end of Lake Worth which is better than in the southern end of the lake. His examination of the water quality indicated no recognized violations of Florida water quality standards in the last two reports. The association's expert, Mr. Timmer, went to Old Port Cove in January, 1987 and saw numerous boats in the slips. He looked for inlets opening into the marine and for a bird population, either one of which could cause an increase in undesirable bacteria in the area. He found none. He took water samples for testing to see if the fecal coliform bacteria level in the marina was higher than outside it. During his tests, he took samples from 14 sites at three separate depths at each. His samples were duplicated for safety in case any one sample was compromised. Six of his samples were taken inside the dock area of the north marina; one was taken to the north several thousand yards; and four more were taken outside the area of the proposed marina. One was taken in the federal anchorage; several across the cove on the east side of the lake and one outside the cove, south of the Intracoastal Waterway inlet and west of the channel. The furthest test site was approximately one mile from the marina. When Mr. Timmer got his samples, he isolated the sets from each other; "refrigerated" them (placing them in a cooler without any ice), and upon completion of his sampling, took them to the McGinnes lab where analyses were done for fecal coliform bacteria. As a result of his tests, and relying on the report received from McGinnes Laboratories, Mr. Timmer concluded that the fecal coliform level within the marina was higher than outside the marina by 5 to 10 times. Surface samples, he felt, averaged out in excess of what he considered to be the state standard. Some of the lower level samples were high also. In no case, however, did any sample exceed a count of 15 outside the marina. Coliform standards, according to state rules, are to be averaged over a month's period of taking. In fact, the report received from the McGinnes lab concluded that because testing was not done over a month's period, the standard was not exceeded. These samples, even that one reflecting a reading of 560 bacteria per 100 ml at site 3a, did not come anywhere near the upper limits of the state standard and in fact was well within it. Mr. Churchill, a zoologist and ecologist and expert in marine biology made various studies of the benthic communities and fish population in the area of the proposed construction. He studied the soft bottom communities and took samples of the bottom in different areas both inside and outside the current marina and in the area where the extension is proposed. He found that the outside and the outer inside communities were much the same and had a low number of species. The inner inside was considerably different. It had a higher number of both species and individuals. A larger number is a better system and DER rules provide that one cannot build a project which would tend to reduce the number. Here, since the area where the construction is planned is outside the area of high species count and similar to the rest of the cove area, the construction would most likely not violate the state's rule. In fact, in Mr. Churchill's opinion, concurred in by other experts, the proposed project will, rather than negatively impact the environment for wildlife, enhance it by providing additional habitat. The pilings, forming supports for the piers and ties for the boats will provided habitat for small marine life which in turn provide food for larger life which is attracted. This testimony would tend to contradict the testimony of at least one of the residents who indicated that in his experience, the fish population in the area had declined radically over the years since he moved in and that about all one can catch in the immediate area now are some small sheepshead. This is in comparison to the larger variety and size of fish available to the angler several years in the past. No doubt, the fish selection and availability has diminished since the area was developed, but the question is whether the new construction will aggravate that situation and the answer appears to be that it will not. An additional water quality study was conducted by Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine scientist who did a water quality study in the area consistent with that done by Dr. McGinnes. He also did several of his own on- site inspections as to water clarity and marine plant and other life including reptiles and birds in the area. On his third visit to the site, he took water quality samples for testing for bacteria and other marine life. As a result of his tests, he concluded that water quality in the area should not be diminished by construction of the marina. During construction, the use of turbidity curtains and booms will tend to keep any temporary disruption to a minimum. He agrees with Dr. McGinnes and Mr. Churchill that the nature of marine life within the area should not be disturbed by the construction. He was unable to observe any sea grasses in the area (they are on the other side of the cove and not where he observed) and dredging would not be involved; only the driving of pilings which will disrupt the bottom only in the immediate area of the piling. Dr. Roessler's credibility was not damaged by the Association's evidence that a previous study done for another agency was rejected and he was not paid for the work done. There was insufficient evidence of detail and a broad-brush smear can not be held effective here. When Old Port Cove submitted it's application for its permit, it included the original draft and all requested information in a final product. This project documentation was evaluated by Ms. Janet Llewellyn, a supervisor with DER, who is an individual fully conversant and familiar with the dredge and fill rules and standards set forth in the statutes and the F.A.C. As to water quality, Ms. Llewellyn analyzed the information submitted by the applicant in response to her request for water samples at certain locations she had identified. These samples showed no current violation of the rules governing dissolved oxygen and fecal or coliform bacteria even with the boats that are currently in the marina. DER also requested "hydrographic information as a part of the reasonable assurance" test and this information was to deal with existing water quality and the flushing action of the tides and winds. Ms. Llewellyn has visited the site, albeit only shortly before the hearing, and as a result believes that the drawings submitted with the permit application are correct and represent the work to be done accurately. Recognizing that the field inspection report submitted by on-scene local DER personnel is somewhat negative in its evaluation of the project, she nonetheless disagrees with certain portions of this report which say that boats and piers will interfere with the flushing action of the wind and tide. She also disagrees with the statement that oil and grease will continue to degrade water quality. She feels that the inspector who did the report did not have available to him the hydrographic and water quality tests that she had. This information, submitted somewhat earlier, was sent to Tallahassee by the experts and was not forwarded to the field representative when the request for the survey was laid on. The Revised Intent to Issue, including as it does, the additional requirements laid on the applicant in such areas as sewage pump-out, liveaboards, fueling facility prohibitions, and the like came about as a result of misunderstandings between DER and the applicant and culminated in the applicant agreeing to try to ameliorate the situation and the issuance of the permit by compromise as suggested. DER is satisfied with the proposals contained in the Revised Intent to Issue and feels that approval of this permit will upgrade the facilities at the south marina as well as insure compliance with state water quality standards at the north marina. Together it will result in an upgrade in the water quality in the area. Ms. Llewellyn is convinced that there will be no negative effects on the water quality by the construction at the north marina and that the criteria contained in both the statutes and the rules, from an environmental standpoint, will not be violated. DER has no authority to consider other factors which appear to be among the most substantial complaints of the association members. She did not consider the possibility of damage to the scenic view by the addition because she did not consider it to be an issue. In her opinion, the question of damage to the property of others relates to damage to structure, property, wildlife, etc., and the impacts to these would be negligible. What she considers important is that the permit involved here is for construction, not operation of the marina and enforcement of continuing operational rules is another consideration entirely. When using the term "assurance" as a requirement for an applicant, the assurance required is not that the new slips will have no adverse impact, but that any adverse impact will not reduce the water quality below standards set out in the statutes and rules. Though not envisioned, water quality can be reduced from very high quality to high quality (a reduction in quality) and still be within standards. Additional scientific examination of the water and the immediate site was conducted by Dr. Kenneth L. Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer, physicist, and physical water quality expert with DER who reviewed the hydrographic study submitted with the application. He found that the drogue study showed water speeds of between .05 to .1 feet per second which was typical of the area. The placing of drogues and the resultant study and conclusions was not flawed by the lack of education of the individual who did the placing at the direction of the scientist. What is important is the education and knowledge of the supervising scientist who will take the information gathered and examine it. Considering that prevailing winds in this area during daylight hours are from the sea to the land, (SE to M), and at night the reverse occurs, any study made only during daylight or during nighttime would be flawed to the extent that it would examine only one part of the equation. Given the baseline information available to him, Dr. Echternacht concluded the project as described would not adversely effect water quality from a hydrographic standpoint. Flushing and circulation are important to water quality. If the water does not move, the pollutants added by outside factors, (here boats), accumulate and build up. On the other hand, the faster the water moves, mixed with turbulence, the faster the pollutant is disbursed and prevented from accumulating. At .05 f/sec, a particle of water would move 180 feet per hour. As a result, water will move the length of the marina, (450') in 2 1/2 hours. Therefore, if a spill occurred at the south boundary during an incoming tide, it would move to the north boundary of the marina within 2 1/2 hours and given a tide cycle of 6 1/2 hours, would still have 3 1/2 to 4 hours to move even further away, mix with other water, and be disbursed before being brought back to the marina by the outgoing tide. (However, there is evidence that the water moves in a clockwise direction and the likelihood is great that the contaminated water would not even come back to the marina but would head out down the eastern side of the cove.) This is a worst case situation because of the slow water movement rate utilized and it is, itself, a relatively fast movement. Admittedly, this water movement will be affected by obstacles in the water such as boat hulls, posts, pilings, and baffles. However, while these factors would slow up the water, they would also create turbulence and vortices in the water which, themselves, help mixing. From a practical standpoint, other factors are involved such as the size of the obstacle, etc. Here we are faced with a situation where the marina is not enclosed and the water flows freely. The water quality can be expected to be better than in an enclosed marina and even better in the new area than in the existing areas because it will be further away from the seawall. Taken together, in light of the evidence presented by both sides, it is found that a diminishment in water quality as a result of the construction of the proposed facility here would be minimal and would in no case, likely result in a reduction of the water quality to a level below that considered acceptable in the state statutes and rules. In addition to water quality, the residents were concerned about the threat of injury to the manatee population which, while not appearing in the immediate area of the proposed construction on a regular basis, does visit the area periodically. In addition, there is substantial evidence to establish that boats coming into and out of the marina, going down through the channel into the main part of Lake Worth and out through the cut, would pass through areas actively populated and visited by manatees and therefore, the opening of 50 additional slips for new boats, even in this less populated area, could have a substantial impact on the manatee population. There is no doubt that manatees do visit the area. There are sea grasses, if not in the immediate area of the proposed marina, certainly on the opposite shore of the north part of Lake Worth. It is uncontroverted as well that manatees have been seen near the marina and in the key area on the other side of the peninsula. However, the evidence introduced by the association's own witnesses, Mr. Rose and Dr. Odell, indicates that the manatee population tends to congregate in areas south of the entrance to the Intracoastal Waterway which, itself, is south of the Old Port Cove area. Many manatee congregate in the warm waters produced by the Riviera Beach power plant in the southern part of Lake Worth and go from there to other areas within the Lake Worth area to feed, even as far north as Hobe Sound and Loxahatchee. Generally, there are not enough sea grasses in the local area to keep them there. Manatees can range up to 12 feet in length and up to 3500 pounds in weight. Manatee deaths in Palm Beach County, of which boat deaths account for approximately 50 percent, are a serious danger to the survival of the manatee population. The greatest danger to manatees comes from power boats. While there is no evidence that sailboats are dangerous since they move slowly enough for the manatee normally to evade then, there nonetheless may be some danger as a result of their presence. Some manatees are crushed by barges and larger power boats. Some are killed by impact with medium and larger boats. In approximately 40 percent of the cases, impact kills without propeller injuries and it is hard to tell the size of the boat which did the damage. As to propeller deaths, boats from 24 feet up can kill by this method. The number of manatee deaths has increased lately as a result of boat and other man related causes and if this trend continues, the manatee population will decline and, possibly, become extinct. Mr. Rose, who is quite familiar with the habits of the manatee in this area, states that it is most likely that in traveling north to Hobe Sound and environs, the manatee would travel up the Intracoastal Waterway (the entrance to which is south of the proposed construction) and not go into the Old Port Cove area. Even if they were following the grass which runs along the east and north shores of Old Port Cove, the grass does not grow on the marina side and it is unlikely the manatees would come to the marina in the west to feed though they might come for other reasons and in fact have been seen in the "key" area. Dr. Odell, perhaps the foremost authority on manatees in the United States, has visited the area and, at this hearing, heard the testimony of the other witnesses. He contends that because of the food available in the form of sea grasses and mangrove seeds, primarily on the eastern side of the cove, the likelihood is that manatees would be found in that area. This is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Rose. Consequently, it is found that while manatees come to the area of the proposed marina from time to time, it is more the stray manatee than evidence of continued habitat. Dr. Odell's studies indicate that between 1974 and 1985, there were no manatee deaths recorded in north Lake Worth. However, it is possible that the dead manatee found elsewhere may have been injured or even died elsewhere, (possibly near Old Port Cove) and there well may have been others who were injured in the area who went elsewhere to die. There is, however, no evidence that this is the case. Dr. Odell considers that boats with a draft of between 5 and 7 feet would leave little clearance from the bottom in the bottleneck area south of the marina where the water depth is no more than 9 or 10 feet, to allow room for the manatee to avoid them. In fact, he feels that large, inboard powered boats pose the greatest threat to the manatee. While sailboats generally do not create a risk to the mammal, if the new 50 slips were to be limited to sailboats but all existing slips were to be converted to power boats, this would constitute a severe threat to the manatee population. Further, a change in use patterns, creating more traffic, would increase the risk to the manatee. The real issue is, however, how much time boats spend in manatee habitats. The more boats there are, the less desirable the situation. (Both experts agree, however that if the 50 new slips are limited to sailboats and the ratio of power boats to sailboats in the existing slips is not increased, there is really no legitimate reason, based on a threat to the manatee population, to deny this construction permit.) It would appear, then, that the risk to the manatee population is acceptable. Signs advising boaters to slow down and beware of manatee are good only so long as they promote awareness. There is, according to Dr. Odell, no evidence that they have reduced manatee mortality and given present trends of more power boats and the destruction of the manatee's habitat, one can expect the manatee population to decrease even further.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a dredge and fill permit to the applicant to construct an additional 50 slips at its north marina as proposed. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 20th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner, Old Port Cove Property Owners Association: 1. Accepted except that the undersigned would quell at the right of an individual who wore 44 foot "boots." 2-7. Accepted. 8. Accepted except for the Finding that sea grasses grow as close as 50 feet to the north marina. 9-10. Accepted. The north marina contains 92 slips which includes 66. Other findings contained herein are accepted. Accepted. Accepted but more in the nature of argument than fact and qualified by the fact that new liveaboards must agree to connect to the proposed central sewage system. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than Finding of Fact. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 17-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as relates to the first sentence. Accepted as to the cited contents of the survey. 22-23. Accepted. 24. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 25-26. Accepted. 27-37. Accepted. 38. Immaterial. By Respondent, Old Port Cove Properties, Limited: 1-7. Accepted. 8-11. Accepted. 12-19. Accepted. 16-19. Accepted as recitations of testimony presented. Rejected as to a shortage of marina slips, accepted as to the rest. Accepted. Accepted as argument. By Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation: 23-25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Esquire Suite 720 450 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Douglas Wyckoff, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue At issue was whether Petitioner should be granted a permit from the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to excavate material in front of the Petitioner's seawall in Naples Bay, Collier County, Florida. The Petitioner owns a residential homesite lot in the Royal Harbor Subdivision in Naples, Florida. Royal Harbor is a waterfront oriented residential community devoted to single family residences; each residence either has waterfront' on Naples Bay or through a network of interior canals which provide navigational access to Naples Bay. All lots are bordered by concrete seawalls. The Concrete seawall bordering the Petitioner's property does not Immediately abut the water, but has an amounts of earth between the seawall and the water's edge, somewhat resembling a beach. It is this earth the Petitioner wishes to remove so that he may have his seawall abut the water which would facilitate the launching of a vessel from his property. Presently, it does not appear that the Petitioner could keep a boat at his property without building a lengthy dock from his seawall into Naples Bay. The Department of Environmental Regulation opposes the application in that it claims the excavation of this material would destroy an oyster bar which exists in front of the Petitioner's property and would eliminate an ecologically significant area. From the exhibits presented at the hearing and after consideration of the testimony, it appears that in the entire Royal Harbor development only the Petitioner's property lacks having the bay waters abut the seawall. The Petitioner's property is approximately one quarter mile from the channel in Naples Bay which is a low energy water body. That is to say, wave action does not become extremely forceful in this area because of the protected nature of the waterway. The Department of Environmental Regulation in part opposes the permit because they state to remove the berm from in front of the seawall would expose the seawall to direct wave energy which would cause turbidity within the waters. No direct evidence was presented that wee the seawalls in Naples Bay are in direct contact with the water that this ill fact does cause increased turbidity and therefore this testimony is rejected by this Hearing Officer as being merely speculative. On the other hand, the Petitioner made no showing that the project would actually be in the public interest except to show that the area in question was a relatively small area. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that were this berm removed and the area converted to a shallow submerged bay bottom, oysters and marine vegetation would eventually propagate here, particularly if the bottom was excavated with a smooth contour. It is difficult to imagine after listening to all the testimony in this case how the granting of this permit would have a measurable environmental Impact. It would appear to this Hearing Officer that there could be some benefit to water quality from the granting of this permit by somewhat restoring Naples Bay to its original condition. Testimony was received that the entire Royal Harbor development was man-made and the removal of this fill would, in some slight degree, remove fill material that had been previously placed within the waters of Naples Bay. Testimony was also received from Mr. Thomas Provenzano, District Supervisor of the Department of Environmental Regulation, that in his opinion it would be environmentally acceptable for the Petitioner to excavate this berm from within five (5) feet of the concrete seawall. This appears to be a reasonable disposition of this dispute. Whatever destructive force the waves of Naples Bay might have on an exposed vertical seawall would be minimized by leaving a five (5) foot berm seaward of that wall and would in no way interfere with the Petitioner's intended use of his land; reasonable navigational access to Naples Bay. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: The application be granted with the proviso that the Petitioner leave a five (5) foot berm between Naples Bay and his vertical seawall. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Carole Haughey, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2552 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Frank, Esquire Suite A, U.S. Home Building 3174 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33940 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LYNN A. LUNDSTROM, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-1555 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) was provided reasonable assurance as required by Rule 17-4.070, F.A.C., that the granting of a permit pursuant to the requirements of Rule 17- 604, F.A.C., to Volusia County for the construction of a closed wastewater collection and transmission system would not result in discharges or emissions or cause pollution in contravention of DER standards or rules.
Findings Of Fact David Biddulph is a resident of Volusia County, Florida and a resident of the unincorporated area known as Bethune Beach. County of Volusia, a charter county, is the applicant for a proposed wastewater collection and transmission system pursuant to Section 403.0878, F.S. [1991] and Rule 17-604, F.A.C. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing permits under Chapter 403, F.S. and its applicable rules. Petitioner Biddulph stipulated that the wastewater collection and transmission system as designed met the technical and engineering design requirements of Rule 17-604, F.A.C. Bethune Beach is an unincorporated area located on the barrier island separating the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon. Volusia County contracted with the environmental engineering firm of Marshall McCully & Associates to determine the feasibility of designing and constructing a wastewater collection and transmission system for the Bethune Beach area. The St. Johns River Water Management District is directed by the Indian River Lagoon System and Basin Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida, to identify areas where existing septic tank systems are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. The St. Johns River Water Management District began developing a general methodology to access areas which are potential sources of pollution in the Indian River Lagoon System. This general methodology was called "Problem Area Index" (PAI). The PAI was intended to be used as an initial screening device in conjunction with other relevant research data or field verification to identify the problem areas. Volusia County's Public Health Unit, a division of the State of Florida Health and Rehabilitative Services Department, (HRS) utilized the proposed PAI to evaluate the southeast area of Volusia County. The Volusia County Public Health Unit entered into a contractual agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District to research and delineate those areas in the southeast part of Volusia County with the potential to cause pollution to the upper Indian River Lagoon surface waters. The foregoing report concluded that the Bethune Beach area was an area of special concern and recommended that development of sewage treatment facilities be provided to this area. Credible competent evidence shows that the existing soils in Bethune Beach have high shell content and a high water table which are not conducive to installation of septic tank systems for sewage disposal, although the houses there now have such septic tanks. The conceptual plan prepared by Marshall McCully & Associates which was presented to Volusia County concluded there was a need to construct a wastewater collection and transmission system, and this plan was adopted by the Volusia County Council after holding the requisite public hearings. Volusia County Ordinance 79-3 authorizes the Volusia County Council to establish special service districts to provide water services and any and all other essential facilities. The county may initiate service in any area in its discretion without receiving an initiating petition from residents. Volusia County also created a special assessment for the installation of the system. Volusia County contracted with Marshall McCully & Associates to obtain the necessary permits for the construction of the wastewater collection and transmission system. Marshall McCully & Associates on behalf of Volusia County applied for a permit from DER to construct a domestic wastewater collection transmission system. In implementing Rule 17-604, F.A.C., DER policy does not require domestic wastewater collection and transmission system permit applicants to demonstrate that septic tanks simply would not work in the area served by the collection system. If the DER permit is granted, the septic tanks now lawfully present on Bethune Beach would have to be removed. The Volusia County application to construct a domestic wastewater collection and transmission system indicates that the sewage treatment facility serving the project would be the City of New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission Pollution Control Plant. DER has already permitted that plant pursuant to Rule 17-600 F.A.C. under permit D064-191532 with an expiration date of June 30, 1995. The design capacity permitted under the existing permit for New Smyrna Beach's plant is 4,000,000 gallons a day, and the current average daily flow over the past twelve months has been approximately 2 and 1/2 million gallons a day. The city plant is currently operating within the parameters of its DER permit. Additional flow to the city plant from the county's proposed wastewater collection and transmission system has been reasonably estimated at 250,000 gallons per day. The only evidence of other amounts is speculative and not probative. DER implementation policy is to issue permits for new collection and transmission systems only where construction of a new collection and transmission system would connect to a sewage treatment plant which already has a permit capable of accommodating the new collection and transmission system. DER policy also does not contemplate granting permits to build waste water collection and transmission systems in such a manner as to increase the amount of water running through currently permitted sewage treatment plants beyond the maximum capacity for which the existing sewage treatment plant itself is currently permitted. In the present instance, Volusia County's proposed collection and transmission system, if permitted pursuant to DER's expressed permit conditions or terms (intent to grant), requirements, would not increase the amount of water running through the city receptor plant beyond the 4,000,000 gallon capacity which has already been reviewed by DER, is currently permitted by DER, and is currently subject to enforcement by DER. Although the county's proposed collection and transmittal system would increase the city plant's actual output by 250,000 gallons, the city plant's total output would thereafter still be 1,250,000 gallons below the plant's current permitted capacity. DER implementation policy also is to issue permits for construction of collection and transmission systems only if the sewage treatment plant to which the system would connect is properly treating the waste as required by the plant's current DER operating permit. The New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission Pollution Control Plant that would receive domestic wastewater from the collection and transmission system proposed by Volusia County's permit application pending in this case is currently properly treating the waste it receives. The city plant currently discharges its effluent into the Indian River Lagoon System as allowed by its DER permit. The city plant also currently has the permitted capacity to receive the level of reasonably anticipated waste which will be transmitted by the collection and transmission system proposed by the county. Under the terms of DER's proposed permit for Volusia County's closed collection and transmission system, the city plant would not be authorized to increase the amount of treated wastewater for which the city plant is currently permitted. In review of permit applications, DER interprets the Indian River Lagoon Act to prohibit any new permitted discharge, or permitted increased loadings. This is a reasonable interpretation and entitled to great weight both as an agency interpretation of a statute it administers and because the agency's statutory interpretation reasonably acknowledges efficacy of the original DER permitting review of the existing city sewage treatment plant, the requirement of DER review of the county's pending application for a collection and transmission system, and the permitting and enforcement oversight of both those governmental entities' operations by the same agency, DER. Although the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Pollution Control Plant is currently operating within the parameters of its DER permit, a Consent Order has previously been negotiated between the city and DER to accomplish upgrading of the pollution control plant to meet new federal regulations for such facilities. The Consent Order requires the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission to begin a program of wastewater reuse and provide for land application of the treated effluent by 1995. The pollution control plant is on schedule for the removal of the effluent. No effluent will be discharged into the Indian River Lagoon System, except under limited wet weather discharge permits, which have been applied for. The Indian River Lagoon Act makes provision for wet weather discharge exceptions as do DER's and the city's actions pursuant to the Consent Order. See, Section 2. (3)(c) of the Indian River Lagoon Act. One of the intents of the Consent Order is to ensure that the treatment plant is in compliance with the Indian River Lagoon Act by the date of July 1, 1995 specified within that Act at Section 2. (2). The city plant permit expires June 30, 1995. If the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission does not receive wet weather discharge permits for its plant, it has planned to implement alternatives, such as onsite storage, to meet the requirements and anticipated enforcement by DER of the Indian River Lagoon Act. The New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission Pollution Control Plant has an extensive inspection and maintenance program, which includes a television system that internally inspects the pipes for evidence of seepage. The New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission Pollution Control Plant is regularly inspected by, and provides monthly operational reports to, DER so that DER can enforce any environmental concerns under the existing plant permit. The plant's operation under its current permit is also subject to review when that permit becomes subject to renewal due to its expiration date of June 30, 1995. Opinion testimony to the effect that increased acidity of the effluent might permeate the county pipes or the city pipes was speculative and unpersuasive.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner and granting the County of Volusia's application upon the terms and conditions set out in the agency's proposed permit (intent to grant). RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 22nd day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-5033 DOAH CASE NO. 92-5033 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner Biddulph's PFOF: 1-2,6 Accepted excepted for unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. 3-5 Rejected as unreconciled, non-dispositive, and unpersuasive expert testimony, not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent, record evidence as a whole. 7 Accepted, except the date July 1, 1995 has been correctly substituted. 8 Immaterial; DER permitting does not encompass whether an applicant builds a "cadillac or a volkswagon" system, as long as what is built meets DER regulatory standards. "Reasonable assurances" do not include "best financial investment." This proposal is also rejected as partial and unreconciled material, not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence as a whole. 9 Not supported by the greater weight of the competent, credible, persuasive evidence. 10 Accepted that PIA is not completed or formalized. That it was not previously considered is not dispositive a de novo hearing. 11 Accepted but subordinate; not dispositive. This expert admittedly did not consider many other sources. 12, 13, 15 Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part. See treatment in recommended order of septic tank situation. 14 Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the competent credible, persuasive evidence. See treatment of target amounts, time frame for effluent reduction, and elimination of contaminants in recommended order. Applicant/Respondent Volusia County's PFOF: 1-11,13-29 Accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. 12 Accepted in substance but not as stated. 30-31 Accepted, but irrelevant, immaterial and non- dispositive of the disputed issues of material fact. Respondent DER's PFOF: 1-17,19-29 Accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. 18 Rejected as proposed because as proposed, it is a proposal of law, not fact; accepted under "conclusions of law" portion of RO. 30-31 Accepted, but irrelevant, immaterial, and non- dispositive of the disputed issues of material fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry A. Stewart, Esquire 5807 South Atlantic Avenue New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 Douglas A. MacLaughlin, Esquire John Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The Jupiter Inlet District, a special taxing district located in northern Palm Beach County maintains that the definition of "public navigation project" found in Rule 18-20.003(26), Florida Administrative Code, is invalid. It reads: "'Public navigation project' means a project primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes." The term public navigation project is substantively used in Rule 18- 20.004(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes management policies, standards and criteria used by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund when deteremining whether to approve request for activities on sovereignty lands in aquatic preserves. That rule states that: "(e) A lease, easement or consent of use may be authorized only for the following activities: a public navigation project; maintenance of an existing navigational channel..." Other portions of the rule provide that eligible requests for a lease, easement or consent of use will be evaluated according to stated social, economic and environmental benefit criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Jupiter Inlet District is a special taxing district in Palm Beach County created in 1921. It is authorized to "construct and thereafter to maintain an inlet connecting the mouth of Jupiter River with the Atlantic Ocean, and ... to deepen Jupiter River in said district and thereafter to maintain same." Section 8, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The legislation found the deepening of the river was a "public purpose and necessary for the preservation of the public health and for the public use of shipping and transportation, and for the extension of commerce of the State of Florida." The district is specifically authorized: "[T]o clean out, straighten, widen, change the course or flow of or deepen any other water course, natural stream or body of water that may be found to be necessary by said board in order to facilitate the opening and maintenance of said inlet or waterway ... or necessary to maintain a sufficient depth of water in said Jupiter River." Section 9, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The district's powers further include the authority to: "Construct and maintain canals, ditches, revetments, jetties and other works," construct bridges, roads, acquire property, and construct and maintain "docks, wharves, buildings and other improvements upon any of the properties which may be acquired by virtue of this act." Id. It is not a port authority as defined in Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The Legislature revised the District's enabling legislation in 1979. That statute contains a finding that the District is "a responsible local agency, entrusted by statute with maintenance of certain waters of the State within its territorial boundaries." Section 1, Ch. 79-532, Laws of Florida. The Legislature then required the Department of Environmental Regulation to seek and take into account recommendations or suggestions by the governing board of the Jupiter Inlet District on any applications for permits for activities in the waters within the Jupiter Inlet District. The territorial boundaries of the district overlap and include a portion of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The Loxahatchee River was formerly known as the Jupiter River. Before 1980, the Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District constructed navigation channels and performed other dredging within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The district is applicant for consent for use of sovereignty lands to dredge a new channel in a portion of the Loxahatchee River located within the preserve. The Florida Aquatic Preserve Act was adopted in 1975. It directs that state-owned submerged lands in areas which have exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value be set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries. Section 258.36, Florida Statutes (1985). The Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve is created in Section 258.39(10), Florida Statutes (1985). Under Section 258.40(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following areas are excluded from aquatic preserves: "Any publicly owned and maintained navigation channel or other public works project authorized by the United States Congress designed to maintain or improve commerce and navigation shall be deemed excluded from the aquatic preserves established under this act." The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is charged with the maintenance of aquatic preserves. Under Section 258.42(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), the trustees are instructed that: "No further dredging or filling of submerged lands shall be approved by the trustees except the following activities may be authorized pursuant to a permit: Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized for public navigation project.... 4. Such other maintenance dredging as may be required for existing navigation channels. " The Board of Trustees is empowered by Section 258.43, Florida Statutes (1985), to enact: "[R]easonable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this act and specifically to provide regulation of human activity within the preserve in such a manner as not to unreasonably interfere with lawful and traditional public uses of the preserve, such as sport and commercial fishing, boating and swimming." The Legislature also authorized the trustees to permit other activities in aquatic preserves, stating: "Reasonable improvement for ingress and egress, mosquito control, shore protection, public utility expansion, surface water drainage, installation and maintenance of oil and gas transportation facilities, and similar purposes may be permitted by the trustees subject to the provisions of any other applicable laws under the jurisdiction of other agencies." Section 258.44, Florida Statutes (1985). There are numerous special act inlet districts in Florida, e.g. St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority created by Ch. 9631, Laws of Florida (1923); Lake Worth Inlet District (now the Port of Palm Beach District) created by Ch. 7081, Laws of Florida (1915); Daytona, New Smyrna Inlet District created by Ch. 14503, Laws of Florida (1929); Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port district created by Ch. 21614, Laws of Florida (1941); Port Orange Special Road and Bridge Inlet District created by Ch. 13492, Laws of Florida (1927); Vero Beach Inlet District created by Ch. 11263, Laws of Florida (1925); Sebastian Inlet District created by Ch. 78-440, Laws of Florida; Hillsborough Inlet Improvement and Maintenance District created by Ch. 73-422, Laws of Florida; and South Lake Worth Inlet District created by Ch. 7080, Laws of Florida (1915). Each district has been subject to special acts amending its organic legislation. The Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District filed a petition with the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 120.54(5), Florida Statutes (1985), seeking amendment of the rule at issue here to include in the definition of public navigation projects not only those authorized and funded by Congress and by port authorities, but also those of special districts. That petition was assigned Case No. 86-001 and was denied by the Department of Natural Resources in an Amended Final Order entered August 28, 1986, introduced into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. No evidence was taken in that proceeding. The Amended Final Order consists mostly of the Department's explanation of why it does not believe amendment of the rule in the manner sought by the Jupiter Inlet District is appropriate. Except for the holding that the Department of Natural Resources will not institute proceedings to amend the rule defining public navigation projects, the Amended Final Order is entitled to little weight. For example, the statement in its Findings of Fact that the Jupiter Inlet District is not within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee Aquatic Preserve (see paragraphs 1 and 11) is simply wrong. There is no evidence that the Jupiter Inlet District operates any sort of port facility.
