The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying Petitioner's application for conditional use approval should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 16, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for conditional use approval with the Respondent seeking permission to operate a personal watercraft rental business at a motel and restaurant located at 601 South Gulf View Boulevard on Clearwater Beach. According to the application, the Petitioner proposes to rent two "Hobie cat" catamaran sailboats, and four to ten "wave runners". The Petitioner proposes that the vessels would be escorted westward, north of and parallel to, the marked boat channel in Clearwater Pass, then northwestward to open waters where, according to Petitioner, a "safewatch and service unit of nonpropeller power" would "monitor" customer activities. The subject property is located between South Gulf View Boulevard and Clearwater Pass, west of the Clearwater Pass Bridge, and is comprised of two zoning districts, an upland portion that is zoned CR-28, or Resort Commercial "Twenty-eight", and a beach front portion that is zoned OS/R, or Open Space/Recreation. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach and Sand Key Islands, and is the only open access between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. A convenience store is located north of the property, and hotels are located east and west of the property. At the hearing before the Respondent's Planning and Zoning Board on March 13, 1990, the Planning and Development Department recommended denial of the application. In its written report to the Board, the planning staff based its recommendation upon the recommendations of the City's Harbormaster and Marine Advisory Board, which in turn were based upon concerns for safety due to the heavy boat traffic in the Clearwater Pass channel and at jetties along the southern end of Clearwater Beach and the northern end of Sand Key, all of which are located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon the testimony of Harbormaster Bill Held, it is found that state and federal approval of markers to mark off a private corridor in Clearwater Pass to accommodate Petitioner's proposed activities would be unlikely. During the hearing before the Board, the Board heard testimony from several persons in opposition to this application based upon concerns regarding the safety of swimmers due to careless operation of similar types of vessels, and strong currents in Clearwater Pass. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board discussed the application prior to voting. Members of the Board expressed concerns regarding public safety due to the dangerous condition of the area. The Board then voted unanimously to deny the application. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, resulting in this case. During this final hearing, Ronald Hollins, President of Gulf Fun, Inc., and agent for the Petitioner, testified that his proposed business would operate seven days a week, from sunrise to sunset, or approximately twelve hours daily. Petitioner testified that his personal watercraft rental vessels would be escorted during trips both from the subject property westward to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and also during return trips, and that a "safety service" boat would monitor the rental vessels while in operation, with the escort boat and the "safety service" boat being in radio contact with a base unit at the motel property. The rental vessels would be prohibited from crossing Clearwater Pass to the south side of the boat channel, and would be limited to an area of operation bounded on the south by Clearwater Pass and on the north by Pier 60 on Clearwater Beach. Petitioner proposes to employ only three or possibly four employees to operate the escort boat, the "safety service" boat, and the base location, to rent the personal watercraft vessels, show a video tape and give a safety booklet to customers, as well as to otherwise supervise the rental vessels during the approximately 84 hours per week that his business would be in operation. Petitoner has never operated a similar business. Based upon the testimony of Richard Howard, captain of a charter boat which regularly goes in and out of Clearwater Pass, it is found that personal watercraft vessels frequently present a hazard to navigation due to the manner in which they are customarily operated. Specifically, personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass engage in practices such as towing swimmers on inner tubes, purposely spraying water at boats, and jumping the wakes of boats in the Pass. The activities proposed by Petitioner would exacerbate the insufficient clearance between boats in the channel, boats anchored at the beach, and swimmers, and would, therefore, be inappropriate in Clearwater Pass. The currents in Clearwater Pass are found to be dangerous to boaters on a regular basis, based on the testimony of Arnold Abramson, bridge tender at the Clearwater Pass bridge and Harbormaster Bill Held. A significant number of personal watercraft operators do not demonstrate an understanding of the rules of navigation, or of the currents in the Pass. Based on the testimony of Marine Patrol Office Bill Farias, it is found that the lack of apparent common sense which is frequently demonstrated by personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass creates a dangerous condition for others. A common practice is to jump the wake of boats, which results in a loss of control in mid-air. The jetty at the western end of Clearwater Pass obscures vision, making it difficult for incoming boaters to see personal watercraft in the vicinity of the motel, and also making it difficult for personal watercraft operators to see incoming boats. There is another boat rental operation in the area of this subject property, located at the Hilton Hotel, but this existing operation predates the adoption of the Clearwater Land Development Code. The Clearwater Pass bridge had 12,000 drawbridge openings in the past year, and is one of the busiest in Florida.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about January 28, 1977, at approximately 2:00 P.M., respondent Spencer, Clarence Jones, and John Aaron were all on duty as employees of the petitioner. The three men were dressed in City work clothes and were riding in a small truck with a City of Clearwater emblem on the side. John Aaron was driving the truck. As the City truck approached the intersection of Jones Street and Garden Avenue in Clearwater at a speed of about 5 miles per hour, it came upon three teenage pedestrians -- two girls and a boy -- walking on the left side of the rode. Driver Aaron said "Hey, now" or "Hey baby" to one or both of the girls. One of the girls said something offensive in reply. At that point, respondent Spencer asked Aaron to stop the truck. After two or three such requests, Aaron stopped the truck and respondent Spencer got out. By this time, the three teenagers had begun to walk away from the truck into a vacant field. Respondent Spencer walked up to the teenagers and one of the girls called him a "nigger" and continued to walk away. Spencer testified that the same girl swung at him with her fist. Neither Aaron nor Jones saw the girl make any threatening gestures toward respondent. After respondent was called a "nigger," he removed his belt and hit the girl twice with the belt as she was walking away. Respondent then returned to the City truck and the three employees drove off. By a "termination and dismissal notice," respondent was advised that he was dismissed as an employee of the City of Clearwater for his activities occurring on January 28, 1977. As causes and reasons therefor, petitioner listed three violations of Rule 14 of the Civil Service Rules of Clearwater. (Exhibit 4) Respondent timely filed his answer and explanation to the charges, petitioner did not accept the same and respondent therefore requested a hearing pursuant to City Ordinance Number 1643, S2-38. Pursuant to a contract between the City of Clearwater and the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the hearing. By an Agreement between the parties dated June 7, 1977, the parties recognized the recent ruling of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County (Civil Case No. 77-1023-7) which held invalid the referendum election amending the City's Civil Service System. Expressing doubt as to Whether the hearing should be held before the Civil Service Board or before a Hearing Officer appointed by said Board, the parties mutually agreed to waive any and all rights to a hearing before the Board, and to abide by the judgment rendered by the Board pursuant to the findings of the Hearing Officer pursuant to Ordinance Numbers 1643 and 1649, subject to the judicial review procedures established by law. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the respondent's dismissal by the City of Clearwater be upheld and AFFIRMED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank X. Kowalski, Esquire Chief Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Ronald E. Smith, Esquire 308 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of real property in Brevard County, Florida. On February 17, 1982, Petitioner filed with DER an application for a permit to construct three docks in the Indian River adjacent to its property. Subsequently, Petitioner withdrew its three-dock application and re- filed its application seeking approval for one dock pursuant to the exemption requirements contained in Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The permit for the exempt dock was received by Petitioner on October 1, 1982. Petitioner then filed an application to construct three new docks, while retaining the exempt dock, by application dated November 4, 1982. DER issued an intent to deny this permit application. The three docks which Petitioner proposes to construct are designed to provide a total of 58 mooring slips. The docks are proposed to be constructed in the Indian River adjacent to Petitioner's upland development which is designed to contain 214 units at build-out. Construction of the three docks will involve expenditure of approximately 845,000, and provide approximately five jobs. At the site of the proposed dock construction, the Indian River is navigable, and is classified as a Class II water body. The area of the Indian River in which the proposed docks are to be constructed has been conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. Sampling conducted by both Petitioner and DER confirm the presence of edible clams on the project site and in adjacent areas. Clams are filter feeders which ingest water and entrap suspended particles which are utilized as food. Any contaminants contained in water ingested by clams are concentrated inside the clam until naturally purged. Human consumption of contaminated clams poses a public health hazard. Petitioner proposes to construct the docks by driving pilings into the river bottom with an air-driven hammer. As the air hammer drives the piling into the soil, it displaces the soil beneath the pilings, and densifies it into the shear zone on both sides of the pile. The piles are supposed to be driven approximately four to five feet into the river bottom. The construction and operation of the marina is not expected to diminish the amount of benthic activity in the project area. The habitat provided by pilings is expected to more than offset the loss of the area displaced by their installation. However, the potential for contamination of shellfish in the project area by fecal coliform bacteria and other pollutants will be significantly increased. Although the number of shellfish might not be severely impacted, their fitness for human consumption by virtue of ingestion of pollutants associated with operation of the facility is expected. In order to attempt to offset this expected impact, Petitioner has proposed several restrictions on persons utilizing the docking facilities. Among these are prohibiting detergents for washing boats; prohibiting dockside fueling facilities; prohibiting discharge of bilge water from inboard craft into the river; prohibiting the use of toilet facilities onboard water craft; and requiring boats and equipment to be maintained in good order. Petitioner proposes to have on-site personnel or a subsequently formed condominium association to enforce these requirements; however, no specific workable mechanism for enforcing these procedures was established of record by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted testimony concerning water quality sampling performed in the project area and in areas adjacent to the proposed site. However, no analysis was conducted over and extended period of time to show existing water quality, or to give any credible comparison between the proposed site and other nonresidential marinas in the area. Further, Petitioner conducted no analysis of bottom sediments in the proposed project area in order to determine the type and extent of any pollutants existing on-site which could be expected to be re-suspended in the water column as a result of intense marine activity. These omissions are significant in view of the fact that the waters of the Indian River in this area have been approved for shellfish harvesting. There are several existing marinas and boat ramps within close proximity to the Petitioner's development. Consequently, both the general public and residents at the development have ample access to the waters of Indian River and its surroundings. Petitioner has made no showing of any hardship which would justify the granting of a variance from DER permitting requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who observed and/or participated in each of the four episodes, the following facts are found: At all times material to the charges herein, respondent DeSantis was an on-duty Clearwater Police Department. officer, holding the rank of patrol sergeant. The respondent had been employed by the Clearwater Police Department since March 14, 1977. He was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 7, 1977, and was issued Certificate Number 02-18239. THE ANDERSON INCIDENT At approximately 8:00 p.m. on October 27, 1984, a radio dispatch was transmitted to Clearwater police officers advising that there was an armed black male in the area who had threatened that he was either going to get some money or someone would be hurt. Respondent observed a suspect, later identified as Harold Anderson, in front of a laundromat where three or four people were sitting in chairs. Respondent drove up to the laundromat, and observed Mr. Anderson walk inside. A woman and a child were inside the front area of the laundromat. Respondent followed Anderson into the laundromat and Anderson proceeded to walk the back area, keeping his back to the respondent. Assuming that Anderson had a gun in his hand and fearing a possible hostage situation with the woman and child, respondent drew his service revolver and informed Anderson that he was under arrest. With pistol drawn and facing Anderson's back, respondent made two attempts within the laundromat to take Anderson into custody. During the second attempt and while respondent's gun was placed on Anderson's spine, a struggle ensued near the front doorway. The struggle caused both the respondent and Anderson to fall, with Anderson on the bottom, upon the hood of a car parked outside the entryway to the laundromat. Sometime during the struggle, respondent was attempting to place his service revolver under Anderson's chin. Instead, the barrel of respondent's pistol went into Anderson's mouth, where it remained for between 20 and 40 seconds, causing Anderson to make choking and gagging sounds. Respondent's pistol was removed from Anderson's mouth after Anderson was handcuffed with the assistance of two other police officers. A loaded handgun was retrieved from the waistband of Anderson's trousers. Officer Kettel arrived on the scene as respondent and Anderson were struggling at the doorway of the laundromat. He observed that Anderson was resisting arrest and that respondent was attempting to calm Anderson down and to retrieve his gun. He recalled that respondent's pistol went into Anderson's mouth as they both landed on the car hood. Officer Watson was the third police officer to arrive. He did not observe the struggle between respondent and Anderson prior to the two reaching the hood of the parked car. When Watson arrived at the scene, Anderson was lying on his back on the car hood and respondent was holding a pistol in Anderson's mouth. Watson's testimony was conflicting as to the exact point in time that Anderson ceased to struggle and the point in time that the pistol was removed from his mouth. Until the point in time that Anderson was handcuffed and his loaded gun retrieved from him, respondent was in fear for his life. He admits that the barrel of his service revolver went into Anderson's mouth, but states that this was unintentional and that he could not remove it without endangering himself until he received assistance from other officers in subduing Anderson. The testimony of two civilian eyewitnesses to this incident was somewhat conflicting as to when the gun went into Anderson's mouth, when Anderson ceased resisting his arrest, and when the gun was removed from Anderson's mouth. There was no evidence that Mr. Anderson was injured as a result of respondent's revolver being inside his mouth. THE HEYWOOD INCIDENT On November 3, 1984, three police officers responded to a radio dispatch concerning an individual who had returned to a Maas Brothers department store armed with sticks and bricks after previously having had an altercation with the security guard there. The individual was Steve Heywood, a 19 year old black male, who had testified that he had returned to Maas Brothers "to defend himself" because the security guard had broken his necklace approximately one-half hour earlier in the evening. When respondent drove into the Maas Brothers parking lot, he observed five or six people standing near the doorway and saw Heywood, dressed only in shorts and tennis shoes, throw some bricks and sticks in a bush. Respondent got out of his cruiser and Heywood started walking away from him. Respondent told Heywood to "freeze" and to "hit the ground." Heywood took three or four more steps, then turned around quickly. At that point, respondent drew his service revolver. Heywood put his hands out or up, started pleading that he had done nothing and went down to the ground on his stomach, with his hands visible. Respondent then approached Heywood with his gun still pointing at him, put his knee on Heywood's back, and placed the barrel of his service revolver next to Heywood's head where it remained for a period of about 30 seconds until another officer handcuffed Heywood. While Heywood appeared excited or upset during this process, he did not fight or struggle. THE TRUBY INCIDENT On October 5, 1984, respondent and Reserve Officer Karen Jackson were dispatched to investigate a report of a fight at an apartment complex. Soon after the officers arrived, Paul Truty began creating a disturbance in the parking lot by shouting abusive and threatening remarks at a victim of a prior sexual abuse, her family and the police officers. Detective Margaret Jewett was also dispatched to the scene to assist the sexual a~use victim. When Truby refused to stop yelling obscenities and inciting the crowd, respondent told him he was under arrest. Truty then began to walk backwards away from the respondent. Respondent pounded his nightstick on the ground three or four times, demanding that Truby return, and Truby then turned and started walking between two apartment buildings. Respondent and Detective Jewett followed Truby a short distance and apprehended him. The respondent pushed Truby against a wall and Jewett placed handcuffs on Truby, securing his hands behind his back. The respondent and Detective Jewett each took one of Truby's arms and escorted him approximately fifty yards back to the respondent's police car. During the walk back to the car, Truby did not resist or struggle and was cooperative and submissive. From this point, there is conflicting evidence between respondent's recollection of events and the recollections of Reserve Officer Jackson and Detective Jewett. Respondent states that Truby was highly intoxicated at the time of his arrest and that he had to use his nightstick to keep Truby's spine stiff and steer him while they were walking back to the patrol car. Respondent explains that Truby stumbled near the car due to the presence of some concrete tire stops adjacent to the passenger side of the cruiser. Detective Jewett and Officer Jackson recall that respondent positioned his police baton parallel to Truby's spine and under his handcuffed hands. As Truby was beginning to enter the police cruiser, respondent intentionally pulled up on the lower end of the nightstick near the handcuffs, thus causing TruLy to stumble and fall off balance. According to these witnesses, respondent then made a sarcastic remark about Truby falling and subsequently pulled Truby up with the nightstick and placed him in the car. Detective Jewett stated that Truby may have been intoxicated. THE VONDERAU INCIDENT On the evening of October 5, 1984, Officer David Watson was dispatched to investigate a report of a domestic disturbance in a residential neighborhood. Officer Green was dispatched as a back-up officer. Upon arrival at the scene, the officers spoke to a very upset woman who told them that her son had done extensive damage to her home and had threatened her. The interior of the woman's home was in shambles. A neighbor led the son, later identified as John Vonderau, to the area of the street where the officers were. He was wearing no shirt and the officers believed he had been drinking. Vonderau exhibited bizzare behavior, marked bye dramatic swings of mood from calm and lethargic to aggressively pacing the street with clenched fists. Officer Watson was concerned that Vonderau could become violent, but he was unsure of his legal right to arrest him since no crime had been committed in Watson's presence. He considered taking Vonderau to a detoxification center or effecting an involuntary commitment to a treatment facility for the mentally ill, pursuant to the Baker Act. Being unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so, Watson radioed respondent, who was his superior on duty that evening, and asked him to come to the scene to advise on the proper course of action. Before respondent arrived, Officer Desrosiers drove by and Officer Watson requested that he stay because Vonderau appeared to be getting more agitated. When respondent and Reserve Officer Jackson arrived on the scene, Officers Watson, Green and Desrosiers were standing in the street in a loose circle around Vonderau, who was pacing back and forth. Officer Watson advised respondent that Vonderau had made death threats to his mother and had completely ramshackled her house. A decision was made that the officers would take Vonderau into custody as a Baker Act patient. When respondent and Watson began to approach Vonderau, he brushed against respondent's shoulder and then assumed a martial arts/karate-type stance, and said, "You'd better get your clubs out. You're going to need them." The officers all took out their police batons, and Vonderau continued to make karate- type motions. Officer Desrosiers was talking on his radio when Vonderau swung at him. Respondent thought Vonderau struck Desrosiers, but no contact was made. Vonderau also approached Officers Watson and Green in an aggressive fashion. When he turned away from Officer Watson, Watson struck Vonderau's leg with his police baton. Vonderau then ceased his crouched stance, stood erect, put his hands in the air and said, "You got me." Officer Watson then ordered Vonderau to get down on the ground. After hesitating momentarily, Vonderau then assumed a push-up position, facing the street and suspending himself with his feet and hands. Immediately after Officer Watson ordered Vonderau to lie flat on the street, the respondent struck a very hard blow with his police baton across Vonderau's shoulders, causing a welt. Vonderau then went immediately to the ground. Once Vonderau was down flat on the street, at least three of the officers quickly moved to securely hold him down and handcuff his hands behind his back. The fourth officer walked over to the police vehicle to retrieve a set of "flex cuffs" to place around Vonderau's legs. At some point, respondent drew his service revolver and, after Vonderau was down and was being handcuffed by the other officers, respondent held his gun to the back of Vonderau's neck behind his ear, while pushing his nightstick against Vonderau's neck. Vonderau had ceased resisting and being aggressive from the time he went flat on his stomach to the street. Respondent held the gun to Vonderau's neck or head for approximately thirty seconds, angrily telling him that if he moved, respondent would "blow his head off." After Vonderau was hand and leg cuffed, he was taken to the police station by Officers Watson and Desrosiers. The testimony is somewhat conflicting as to the exact point in time that respondent withdrew his service revolver from his holster. Respondent states, and the other officers present admit the possibility, that his pistol was drawn when Vonderau first assumed his karate-type stance and began swinging at the other officers. He further states that he thereafter attempted to place his pistol back in its holster, but, because his holster lining was torn, he had to hold it there. However, on cross- examination, respondent admitted that he intentionally placed his gun next to Vonderau's head because he felt he and the other officers were in jeopardy. Respondent felt that the placing of his service revolver against Vonderau's neck was effective in calming him down. All officers on the scene believed that Vonderau possessed knowledge of a martial art and that he was dangerous. However, officers Watson, Green, Desrosiers and Jackson agreed that Vonderau ceased to resist completely once he was flat on the ground on his stomach.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent Joseph DeSantis be dismissed as an employee of the Clearwater Police Department for utilizing excessive force during the arrests of Steve Heywood and John Vonderau, and that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of April, 1987. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer The Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488 9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis Kwall, Esq. 133 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, FL 33516| Margot Pequignot, Esq. P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 3351 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33516 Miles A. Lance, Esq. P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33516 Joseph S. White, Esq. Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties have been carefully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner, CJSTC 22. The evidence is unclear as to the number of officers holding Vonderau down. 40, 41 and 43. Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. First sentence rejected; contrary to the evidence. 55. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. Petitioner, City of Clearwater (NOTE: Many of the City's proposed findings of fact constitute recitations or summaries of an individual's testimony. The following rejections of the proposed factual findings does not indicate that the cited witness did not so testify, but that said testimony was not sufficient, in light of other testimony, to support a factual finding.) 8(b) Rejected. 8(f) Rejected. 8(i)(2) Rejected, as contrary to the evidence. 8(i)(5) Rejected, as contrary to the evidence. 8(i)(6) Rejected, as contrary to the evidence. 8(i)(7) Rejected, as constituting a legal conclusion as opposed to a factual finding. 9(i) McKenna was accepted as an expert in the area of law enforcement standards. 9(k)(5) Rejected as a factual finding. 10(d)(l) Rejected, not established by competent, substantial evidence. 10(d)(3) Rejected, not established by competent, substantial evidence. 10(g)(3) & (i) Rejected, not established by competent, substantial evidence. Respondent (NOTE: Many of respondent's proposed factual findings constitute verbatim recitations of testimony. These are improper findings of fact and are rejected as such.) page 6, first Rejected, as contrary to the sentence of last evidence. paragraph page 24, second Rejected, not supported by full paragraph competent evidence. page 27, first Rejected, as contrary to the paragraph evidence. page 28A, last Rejected as irrelevant and paragraph immaterial to the issues in dispute. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case Nos. 85-3698 86-0889 JOSEPH R. DESANTIS, CJSTC Case No. L-1703 Certificate Number: 02-18239 Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Homeport Homeowners Association, represents the property owners of Homeport Development. Homeport Development is a planned unit development consisting of eighty single family lots. The development is located at Navarre Beach, Florida, on the south shore of Santa Rosa Sound. At least six of the development's lots are located on the water. The area surrounding Homeport development is primarily residential in character, with some condominiums adjoining the residential area and a canal leading to a public boat ramp within several hundred feet of the development. The area is fairly pristine. However, there are several piers of varying lengths located in the surrounding area. At least one of those piers is close to 400 feet in length. None of the piers have posed any significant pollution or water quality problems and have not had an adverse impact on the public as a whole. Nor were any of these piers shown to adversely impact the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, cause harmful erosion or shoaling or pose a navigational hazard to boats using the area. Water depths offshore are shallow and do not get over three to four feet for approximately 650 feet. On May 25, 1989, the applicant submitted an application (permit application No. 17-165358-1) to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a 727 foot by five foot pier with a 100 foot by four foot "T", ten boat slips and a hexagonal gazebo. The pier would be constructed out of wood and rest on wooden pilings. The pilings are spaced so as not to impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The wood used to construct the pier would be marine treated lumber. The wood would not be treated using creosote. The evidence did not demonstrate that the marine treated wood the applicant intends to use in the construction of the pier would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The proposed pier would be located on property leased to the the Association as part of Homeport Development. The pier would extend from the road adjacent to the lot on which the pier is located, would cross an area of wetlands which is under the jurisdiction of the department and would cross over the adjoining beach to reach the waters of Santa Rosa Sound. The pier would have a stair ingress and egress to the beach and the public may use these stairs to cross over the pier. The water portion of the dock would cross over a sandy bottom; and therefore, would not adversely affect vegetation. The pier is intended to be a permanent amenity of the development. Construction of other piers by lot owners who have waterfront property is limited and this pier is intended to be a substitute for such private docks. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the pier, as it was originally proposed, did not meet departmental standards for water quality and the public interest. Specifically, the Department determined that the 727 foot pier would likely pose a hazard to the navigation of small boats in the area and that the gazebo would have an adverse impact on the salt marsh in which it would be located. On August 8, 1989, the Department issued an Intent to Deny based on its assessment of the proposed project. The Intent to Deny provided that the project could be permitted if the gazebo were moved to an upland location not within the jurisdiction of the Department and the pier shortened to approximately 400 feet to remove the hazard to navigation posed by the 727 foot pier. The applicant took the Department's advice and modified its application. Specifically, the applicant modified the project to relocate the gazebo to an upland site and shorten the pier to 400 feet. The applicant also eliminated the ten boat slips. All other specifics of the original application remained the same. On August 9, 1990, the Department issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of a 400 foot pier subject to several permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other piers in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this pier. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed pier would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the better evidence demonstrated that the pier would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. The evidence demonstrated that some temporary impact on the vegetation of the wetlands would occur in the immediate path of construction of the pier. However, the evidence also demonstrated that the impact would not be significant and would repair itself within a reasonable period of time. The length of the pier does not pose a hazard to navigation of either small or large boats, or motorized or non-mechanized craft. However, the permit does not require the pier to be lighted during periods of darkness or adverse conditions. Given the fact that the location of the proposed pier does not appear to be in a well lit area, and because of the pier's proximity to a canal leading to a public boat ramp that is subject to periodic high use, the pier would likely pose a hazard to navigation should adequate lighting not be required. Therefore, a condition that the pier be constructed with lights sufficient to illuminate it to a person in the water during periods of darkness or poor viewing conditions should be added to the draft permit attached to the Department's Intent to Issue. Subject to the addition of the above condition, permit application NO. 17-165358-1 sought by Homeport Homeowners Association, for a permit to construct a 400 foot pier should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a permit to construct a 400 foot pier as sought by Homeport Homeowners Association in permit application NO. 17-165358-1 and subject to the additional permit condition that lighting be added to the pier. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-6184 The facts contained in the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in the first two sentences of paragraph one were not shown by the evidence and are not appropriate facts for official recognition. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 11, 13, 14 and 19 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 15, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 12 and 16 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant or immaterial. The facts contained in the first paragraph of finding number 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second paragraph of finding 4 are adopted. Paragraph 2 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are legal argument. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate except for the fact referencing the a navigational hazard which fact was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the second sentence of paragraph 8 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the first and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the fact relating a navigation hazard which was not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Callaway P.O. Box 36097 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Bruce A. McDonald 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3C Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400 Barbara Ownes 113 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70433 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should modify the conditions of permits held by the Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., d/b/a Deep Lagoon Marina (Applicant), to allow Applicant to construct and operate a boat travel lift in a new location at the marina and to substitute a 60-foot wide flushing channel required by the prior permits with two-48 inches box culverts.
Findings Of Fact Applicant owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina (the Marina). The Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. The Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. The Marina is on Deep Lagoon, a Class III surface water body less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove- lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns at least the uplands and claims ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals. The parties have stipulated that ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals is not being litigated or decided in this proceeding and that, subject to the issue's being decided adverse to the Applicant in other proceedings, sufficient ownership is presumed for purposes of this proceeding. From north to south, the Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Petitioner, Brenda Sheridan, resides at 842 Cal Cove Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, which is on the shores of the Caloosahatchee River at Deep Lagoon, just across the south canal from the Marina. Intervenor, Save the Manatee Club (STMC), is a non- profit Florida corporation with approximately 40,000 members. The organization's stated purpose includes protecting the manatee and its habitat through public awareness efforts, research support and advocacy, which activities benefit manatees, STMC, and its members. The Florida Legislature has recognized STMC's substantial interest in manatee protection by designating it a member of the manatee protection committee provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act at paragraph 370.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and by requiring the state to solicit recommendations from STMC regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies, at Section 370.12(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Numerous members of STMC reside within Lee County, where they observe, study, photograph, and actively attempt to protect manatees from collisions with watercraft. These efforts benefit manatees and provide STMC's members with educational and recreational benefits in the waters of Lee County that would be affected by the proposed activity. STMC has expended substantial resources in advocating increased legal protection of manatees in Lee County, including additional boat speed regulations on the Caloosahatchee River. STMC has also constributed funds for the rescue and rehabilitation of manatees exposed to red tide in Lee County waters. Injury, mortality, and loss of important habitat would produce significant, adverse impacts to the manatee, thereby diminishing the ability of STMC's members to observe, study, and enjoy manatees in waters that would be affected by the proposed activity and frustrating STMC's efforts to preserve and protect manatees in Lee County. Permit History On December 9, 1986,, Applicant's predecessor in title applied to DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), for a dredge and fill permit to rehabilitate the 61 existing wet slips at the Marina and add 113 new wet slips. Because Deep Lagoon violated Class III water quality standards, and there was concern for the West Indian manatee, a listed endangered species which uses the waters in and around Deep Lagoon, DER placed conditions on the permit and gave notice of intent to grant the permit, with conditions, on July 26, 1988. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the permit, and formal administrative proceedings were conducted, culminating in a final order on August 24, 1989, approving the permit, with additional conditions, and certifying under the federal Clean Water Act that state water quality standards were met because there would be a net improvement in water quality of the poorly-flushed canals. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 11 F.A.L.R. 4710 (DER 1989). Wetland Resource Permit 361279929, incorporating all of the conditions, was issued on September 22, 1989, for construction and operation of the project for five years (the 1989 Permit). Petitioner and the others appealed the final order. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the 1989 Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DER's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following proceedings on remand, DER entered Final Order on Remand on April 10, 1992, which revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341, as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 14 F.A.L.R. 2187 (DER 1992). The 1989 Permit expired on September 22, 1994, but Environmental Resource Permit 362504599 was issued on October 9, 1995, essentially extending the 1989 Permit conditions for ten years, to October 9, 2005. Minor modifications were approved on November 17, 1995, March 26, 1997, and April 15, 1997. Environmental Resource Permit 362504599, with all conditions and subsequent modifications, is referred to as the 1995 Permit. Permit Conditions In general, the 1995 Permit authorizes the owner of the Marina: to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The 1995 Permit authorized activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposed several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among them, Specific Condition 5 stated in pertinent part: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addressed the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provided in pertinent part: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. Specific Condition 11 added: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 required the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibited live-aboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 added various manatee-protection provisions. Applicant's DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Specific Condition 5 of the 1995 Permit, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter described the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assured that Applicant's contractor would use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advised that the contractor would unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter stated that the dredging would "be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the 1995 Permit, and would be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [1995 Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divided the dredging into two areas. (For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals and then replace these materials with clean backfill material, as already authorized in the 1995 Permit.) For 4.84 acres, which ran through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated its determination that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement to obtain an ERP. The letter warned that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter added that DEP could revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provided a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Petitioner challenged the exempt status of the maintenance dredging, and STMC intervened in support of the challenge, which was referred to DOAH and given DOAH Case No. 98-3901. But Applicant's contractor proceeded during the pendency of the challenges and completed the maintenance dredging in the three canals. (Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the 1995 Permit.) On November 5, 1998, DEP gave notice of intent to issue the ERP for the surface water management system and certify compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code, Section 1341. Petitioner filed a challenge on December 8, 1998, and the matter was referred to DOAH, where it was given DOAH Case No. 98-5409. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the 1989 Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification, consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were pending when Applicant sought the modifications to the conditions of the 1995 Permit which are the subject of this case (DOAH Case No. 99- 2234). DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were consolidated and heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert E. Meale on February 11 and May 3-4, 1999. On November 24, 1999, ALJ Meale entered a Recommended Order recommending a final order revoking DEP's determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409. The recommendation to deny the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409 was based on findings and conclusions: (1) that Applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed surface water management system would result in a "net improvement" in water quality; and (2) that the direct and secondary impacts of the construction and operation of the system would adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Water Quality As indicated in relating the permitting history of this site, water quality in the waters of the Marina has been poor. See Findings 10 and 12, supra. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one- day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. In this case, the parties stipulated that the waters of Deep Lagoon and the Marina are Class III marine waters that do not meet Florida water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria. They also stipulated that there were violations in 1987 for oil and greases (20 times standard), fecal coliform (too numerous to count), lead (20 times standard), cadmium (ten times standard), mercury (1,000 times standard), biological diversity, and tributytin (150 times standard) (although DEP and Applicant do not think the 1987 data are relevant). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the north canal to be 183 hours (tidal prism method), 90.5 hours (current velocity), and 50 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the main basin to be 208 hours (tidal prism method), 48 hours (current velocity), and 154 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Manatees The parties stipulated that Lee County is a heavy use area for the West Indian Manatee and that manatees use the water south of Deep Lagoon and the Caloosahatchee River on a year-round basis. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. It is clear that manatees frequent Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the north canal. There are seagrass beds there to serve as a food source, and freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges in that area. The evidence in this case includes testimony and numerous photographs of manatees not only in that vicinity but up to 200 feet into the north canal. While there are no seagrass beds in the north canal itself, freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges into the north canal all along the length of mangrove fringe on the north shore of the canal. It is not clear how much further up the north canal manatees go, but they probably frequently continue further into the north canal since one primary attraction of the north canal for manatees at this time is its relative quiet and peacefulness. Manatees also make some use of the central and south canals of the Marina, but they seem to prefer the north canal for its peacefulness and for the fresh water supply from the Iona Drainage District ditch. The Florida Department of Transportation recently has constructed a retention pond for MacGregor Boulevard in the vicinity of the Marina which will discharge fresh water into the main basin of the central canal. This may make the central canal more attractive to manatees than it is at this time, notwithstanding the relatively high level of boating-related activity there. New Boat Travel Lift The Marina's existing boat travel lift is located in the main basin of the central canal. There also are the remnants of an older travel lift operation at the western end of the central peninsula extending into Deep Lagoon. Applicant proposes to construct and use a new boat travel lift at the eastern terminus of the north canal. The proposed location of the new travel lift will be closer to the approved location of a new service center building. A travel lift essentially consists of a heavy-duty, U-shaped frame which is built on wheels and motorized for mobility. Heavy-duty straps are suspended from the frame using pulley systems. The travel lift is driven out over water on specially-built tracks so the straps can be placed underneath large vessels (over 40 feet) and tightened using the pulleys to secure the vessels; the travel lift is then driven off the tracks, and the vessels are transported to a dry storage or repair location, where the vessels are lowered, and the straps are removed. The process essentially is reversed to return vessels to the water. The direct impact of construction of the new boat travel lift involves removal of some mangroves existing at the terminus of the north canal and sinking pilings to support the tracks extending into the water on which the travel lift operates. Applicant proposes to mitigate the mangrove impacts by filling areas on either side of the proposed travel lift to just above the mean-high waterline and planting the areas with mangroves. Not only will this be a net increase the amount of mangrove fringe, the decrease in water depth at the east end of the north canal also will improve flushing of the canal to some extent. Applicant also proposes to remove exotic plants all along the shoreline of the Marina's canals for the life of the Marina. It is the Marina's intent to use the travel lift only for vessels too large to be lifted by forklifts operated at the main basin of the central canal. The Marina is purchasing new, larger (37,000 pound) forklifts (compared to the 10,000 pound forklifts currently in use), which can lift vessels up to approximately 42 feet long. Use of the larger forklifts will reduce the use of the travel lift. At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use to the travel lift to vessels too large to be lifted by the new forklifts. New Specific Condition 33 in the proposed permit modifications provides: "Launching of vessels from the dry storage facilities shall be prohibited in the north canal at the site." New Specific Condition 34 in the proposed permit modifications provides in part: "Launching and retrieval of vessels in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels stored/moored at the marina facility that require boat repair." New Specific Condition 34 also would require Applicant to maintain logs for the travel lift and boat repairs to allow DEP to verify compliance by comparing the two logs. There was some disagreement as to the intent of the quoted proposed new specific conditions. A DEP witness thought it meant that the Marina only could use the travel lift for repair of vessels permanently moored at the Marina, but the Marina's representative did not think the language would prohibit the repair of other vessels as well. Assuming that vessels not permanently moored at the Marina will be accepted for repairs, and that only vessels too large for the new forklifts will use the new travel lift, it can be anticipated that an average of 6-10 vessels a week will use the travel lift for retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water. To some extent, use of the travel lift is limited by the average time it takes to use the lift. But considering only those limitations, it is possible use the lift as many as 19 times in a day in an emergency--e.g., when a hurricane is approaching, and the Marina is trying to get as many boats out of the water as possible. On average, use of the travel lift also will be limited by market conditions and the capacity of the new service center to store and repair large vessels. More than half of the average use of 6-10 vessels a week probably will occur on Fridays (for repairs before peak weekend boating) and Mondays (for repairs after the weekend peak). At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use of the new travel lift. But at final hearing, the Marina expressed its willingness to accept a limit of an average of ten vessels a week. (Counting retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water for each vessel, the agreed limit would be an average of 20 uses of the travel lift a week). The Marina was not willing to accept a daily limit. Secondary impacts from such a limited use of the proposed new travel lift on water quality and manatees are difficult to assess precisely. The travel lift itself uses some form of lubrication, but only the straps enter the water during operation. Historically, vessels have been pressure-washed and had their bilges and engines flushed while on the existing travel lift in the main basin of the central canal at the Marina, and wash-water from these operations has entered the main basin at that location. Wash-water from such operations at the proposed new travel lift location would enter the north canal, subject to the construction and operation of an adequate surface water management system, as required by Specific Condition 5.C. of the 1995 Permit. Cf. DOAH Case No. 98-5409, supra. It is possible that vessels in need of repair entering the north canal and proceeding to the proposed new travel lift location (whether under power or being towed) could leak oil or gasoline. Both contaminants would rise to the surface. Leaked gasoline and the more volatile components of oil could be expected to evaporate relatively quickly; the residue of oil contamination would be persistent. Such spills would affect water quality and could affect manatees drinking fresher water from the surface of the north canal. There was no evidence from which to predict or quantify such impacts. It would be possible for manatees to be injured by vessels using the proposed new travel lift. Although such vessels would be traveling at low speed (1-2 mile per hour), maneuvering such large vessels in close quarters like the north canal sometimes is accomplished by intermittent bursts of high engine and propeller speeds, both in forward and reverse gears. Such operations could cause a vessel to lurch in the direction of a manatee; if done in reverse gear, a manatee could be sucked into the speeding propellers. It also is possible for a manatee to be crushed against the bottom or against a structure of the Marina facility during such operations. Despite the possibility of injury to manatees from use of the new proposed travel lift, it is clear that most manatee injuries and deaths from boat collisions occur as a result of propeller injuries from boats being operated at high-speed. Manatees are known to frequent and safely use marinas where large vessels operate at low speed. The risk of danger to manatees from use of the proposed new travel lift can be characterized as being minimal if not speculative, especially in view of the manatee protections in Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. Initially, DEP misunderstood the nature of the proposed new travel lift, thinking it would greatly increase boat traffic in the north canal. When the minor impact of the project was explained, DEP's concerns were allayed. Greater risk of danger to manatees would occur from the addition of wet slips in the north canal, but those impacts are not secondary to the travel lift proposal; they are completely separate impacts that are governed by the pre-existing 1995 Permit. Petitioner and Intervenor were critical of the absence of a specific condition for the daily logs to be presented to DEP for inspection on a regular basis. See Finding 42, supra. They contended that absence of such a requirement would compromise compliance enforcement. But DEP inspection of the logs at times of its own choosing could be just as effective. The key to enforcement is having an enforceable specific condition limiting use of the travel lift. Petitioner and Intervenor also were critical of using a simple weekly average to limit use of the new travel lift. They correctly argue that the time over which the weekly average would be computed must be designated for such a use limitation to be enforceable. They also contend that there should be a daily limit. Assuming a weekly average limitation of ten, a daily limit of ten would not be unreasonable if it allowed leeway to exceed the daily limit in cases of emergencies such as approaching hurricanes. Replacing Flushing Channel with Culverts Applicant's proposal to replace the 60 foot by 4.5 foot-deep flushing channel with two 48-inch culverts is motivated by practical considerations. Applicant essentially wishes to avoid the expense of constructing the channel required under the 1995 Permit and having to bridge the channel to make use of the peninsula between the central and north canals. Part of the Marina's initial motivation for the channel was to expand operations and allow access to the north canal from the main basin. Part of the channel was to have been used by the Marina as a new forklift area with access to boat storage areas on both sides of the channel. In the 1989 Permit, it was stated that the channel was "to act as a sediment sump." It was not until the 1995 Permit that the channel was said to serve to "improve flushing." Most of the "net improvement" of water quality at the Marina was to come from proposed contamination dredging of the canals (and backfilling with clean sand), removal of contaminated soil from Marina uplands, installation of a redesigned boat-wash area, and installation of an adequate surface water management system. Most flushing benefits were anticipated to come from making the canals shallower by back-filling after dredging. Flushing from the channel was presented as "frosting" on the "net improvement cake." The hydrographic evidence was that the channel, in conjunction with back-filling the Marina's canals, would indeed increase flushing of the Marina's canals to some extent. Looking at the main basin only, the channel would improve flushing by up to 27 percent. But looking at the Marina's canals overall, the channel would only increase flushing by up to 0.6 percent. By comparison, the hydrographic evidence was that the proposed flushing culverts also would contribute to increased flushing but by a smaller amount. Looking at the main basin only, the proposed flushing culverts would improve flushing by up to 4 percent. Looking at the Marina's canals overall, the proposed flushing canal would only increase flushing by up to 0.2 percent. Petitioner and Intervenor question the reliability of Applicant's calculations of flushing times without more up-to- date data on the depths of the canals after contamination and maintenance dredging. But the evidence was that differences in the starting depths would not have a significant effect on the relative changes in flushing times from the channel versus the culverts; the differences would be approximately proportional regardless of the starting depths. In addition, the depths assumed in Applicant's calculations are based on the 1987 data and the requirements of the 1995 Permit. Compliance with the requirements of maintenance dredging and the 1995 Permit can be enforced, if necessary, in other proceedings. See, e.g., DOAH Case No. 98-3901, as to maintenance dredging. Applicant's calculations on flushing times do not account for the possibility of an additional benefit from the proposed flushing culverts. Applicant proposes to locate the culvert inverts at a depth of 6 feet. If a greater salinity gradient exists at that depth, the culverts would have a relative advantage over a 4.5 foot-deep channel in terms of flushing and the exchange of more oxygenated water between the north canal and the main basin. The existence of such a salinity gradient is suggested by data collected in 1997. But salinity gradients are not constant, and water samples were collected only during one 24- hour period in May 1997 and another 24-hour period in September 1997. In addition, no data has been collected after the maintenance and contamination dredging. The sampling in this case was too limited to give reasonable assurance that the proposed flushing culverts would have advantages over the required channel in promoting of flushing. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that changing the open channel to closed culverts would decrease the benefit of oxygen exchange in an open-channel system. It is true that, generally, more oxygen would be introduced in an open system. But the evidence was that none of the "net improvement" to water quality from the specific conditions to the 1995 Permit was anticipated to derive from increases in dissolved oxygen from oxygen exchange in the channel. Conversely, Applicant contended that the proposed culverts would decrease the chances of contamination from the uplands, as compared to an open channel. But there was no specific evidence to support or quantify this speculative benefit. In addition, required improvements in surface water management at the Marina would reduce any such benefits from the culverts. See, Specific Condition 5.B. and DOAH Case No. 98-5409. Approximately 60 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed from the north canal to accommodate a flushing channel. In contrast, only approximately 8 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed culverts. But there was no evidence as to how removing less of the mangrove fringe would improve flushing or water quality. In addition, Specific Condition 12 of the 1995 Permit required replacement of the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. There was no evidence that installation of flushing culverts instead of the flushing channel required under the 1995 Permit would have any impact on manatees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: granting Applicant's proposed modifications to the 1995 Permit, with the following additional modifications: No use of the new travel lift for boats less than 40 foot in length except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Limitation on use of travel lift to a 28- day rolling average of ten vessels a week, except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Prohibition against pressure-washing and flushing bilges and engines of vessels on the new travel lift except in the boat wash area to be constructed and operated in accordance with Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. A requirement to report and promptly clean-up any spills of oil or gasoline in the north canal related to operation of the new travel lift. waiving certification as a precondition to federal permitting under 33 United States Code, Section 1341. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: T. Elaine Holmes, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman, Esquire Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Miami Yacht Divers, Inc., is entitled to reimbursement for cleanup costs.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering claims against the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund. Petitioner is a company located in Dade County, Florida, which performs commercial diving operations. Such operations include oil pollution containment and clean-up. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Dan Delmonico was the principal officer or owner for the Petitioner who supervised the operations of the company. In April of 1993, Mr. Delmonico discovered a fuel discharge next door to the premises of Defender Yacht, Inc., a company located on the Miami River in Dade County, Florida. The source of the discharge was an abandoned sunken vessel. This derelict vessel had no markings from which its ownership could be determined. Upon discovering the vessel, Mr. Delmonico did not contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the discharge. Instead, Mr. Delmonico contacted several colleagues whose help he enlisted to assist him to clean up the discharge. In this regard, Mr. Delmonico procured the services of a diver and a crane company to remove the vessel from the water. Additionally, Mr. Delmonico utilized a boom and oil absorbent clean-up pads to remove the discharged fuel from the water. In total, Mr. Delmonico maintains it took four work days to complete the removal of the discharge and the salvage of the derelict vessel. At no time during this period did Mr. Delmonico contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the foregoing activities. No official from any governmental entity supervised or approved the clean-up operation or salvage activity which is in dispute. After the fact Petitioner filed a reimbursement claim with the United States Coast Guard. Such claim was denied. Upon receipt of such denial, Petitioner filed the claim which is at issue in the instant case. In connection with this claim with Respondent, Petitioner submitted all forms previously tendered to the Coast Guard including the standard claim form, labor receipts, rental receipts, supply receipts, trailer and storage receipts, cash expenses, a job summary, and photographs. On or about September 20, 1996, Respondent issued a letter denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement for expenses associated with the above-described salvage and clean-up activities. The grounds for the denial were the Petitioner's failure to obtain prior approval for the activities and the absence of "good cause" for the waiver of prior approval. Additionally, the Respondent maintained that Petitioner had failed to provide evidence that a pollutant discharge existed and that the removal of the vessel was necessary to abate and remove the discharge. It is undisputed by Petitioner that prior approval for the clean-up activities was not obtained. Petitioner timely disputed the denial and was afforded a point of entry to challenge such decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathelyn M. Jacques Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 N. Paul San Filippo, Esquire Seidensticker & San Filippo Parkway Financial Center 2150 Goodlette Road, Suite 305 Naples, Florida 34102
