Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Chandler sought exemption from permitting requirement from the Department to perform certain dredging in two artificial dead-end canals located in Placida Point Subdivision (formerly Porto-Fino Subdivision), Charlotte County, Florida. The Department has denied the exemption on the basis that "the proposed work indicates that it is not for maintenance purposes, and therefore, it does not fit the maintenance exemption". The dredging proposed by Chandler would remove the existing earthen plugs between Coral Creek (an adjacent creek) and the two canals. Coral Creek is a natural body of water and is waters of the State. The two canals were excavated (constructed) during the latter part of 1969 and early 1970 (before April 1970). Although no original design specifications were offered into evidence, there is sufficient competent evidence to show that at the time the canals were constructed earthen plugs were left between the canals and Coral Creek which restricted the water exchange between the canals and Coral Creek. The exchange of water apparently occurred at mean high water, and navigation, if any, was restricted to small boats. Porto-Fino Realty Co., Inc., (Porto-Fino) developed the Porto-Fino Subdivision in 1971, and in early 1971 applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) for a dredge permit to connect the certain existing canals, which included the canals in question, to Coral Creek. As part of the application review, a site inspection was made, and it was found that the earthen plugs left between Coral Creek and the canals when they were constructed allowed water to ebb and flow during periods of high tide. As a result of this site inspection, it was recommended that before any further consideration be given the permit application, that the applicant be advised that the canals had to be adequately diked. The record is not clear on whether this permit was granted, but apparently it was not because this subject was raised again in 1974 with Lou Fusz Motor Company, the present owner of Porto-Fino Subdivision, by the Board and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps). Apparently, it was determined by the Board, and possibly by the Corps, that the plugs had washed out and needed to be repaired. In 1975, at the request of the Board, the earthen plugs were repaired and culverts placed in the plugs to allow flushing of the canals. The earthen plugs are presently in existence in the mouth of the canals, and are colonized by mangroves, Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The mangroves are mature trees 10-15 feet in height, and approximately 10-15 years old. The plugs do not show any signs of any recent dredging in or around the mouths of the canals. The plugs form a barrier to navigation between the canals and Coral Creek. The canals have not been used for navigational access to Coral Creek since they were repaired in 1975. The canals have not been previously dredged to maintain navigational access for boat traffic to Coral Creek, and are not presently used for navigational access to Coral Creek. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the earthen plugs, as they presently exist, are man-made barriers that separated the two canals from Coral Creek. There is insufficient evidence to show that the repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was illegal. The repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was necessary because the original plugs had not been properly constructed or had washed out over the period of years. Coral Creek and the canals in question are surface waters of the state as defined in Rule 17-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Canals which are used for navigation have to be periodically dredged to maintain navigational access. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the dredging proposed by Chandler would not be "maintenance dredging" as contemplated by Rule 17-312.050(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue Whether or not the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project meets the requirements of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17 for issuance of a dredge and fill permit, and if so, how those assurances may be incorporated into the permit as finally issued. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE On May 3, 1989, the applicant, Johnny P. Hires, applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an "after the fact" dredge and fill permit to authorize the existence of a dock and associated structures which had already been constructed on Miller's Creek in Duval County, Florida. On July 28, 1989 DER executed its Notice of Permit Denial for the project. On May 29, 1990, negotiations between Hires and DER resulted in a Notice of Permit Issuance which approved the project subject to a specific condition (Specific Condition No. 7) to which Mr. Hires had already agreed. On June 8, 1990, DER received Gilmour and Gray's petition challenging DER's approval of the permit. On June 13, 1990, the petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-3690. Prior to formal hearing, DER personnel reassessed the agency position once again with the result that at formal hearing DER asserted that Specific Condition No. 7 of the proposed permit was not stringent enough and sought to present evidence that Specific Condition No. 7 should be modified if the permit is to be issued at all. Neither Petitioners nor Hires objected to this procedure, so the parties' positions at hearing were, by agreement, as follows: Mr. Hires wanted the proposed permit finalized as drafted; the Department wanted the proposed permit issued, with a modified Specific Condition No. 7; and Petitioners wanted the proposed permit denied.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Hires constructed a dock, boathouse, and three catwalks in February or March of 1989, without a permit, within the landward extent of Miller's Creek. The dock is 40 feet by 5 feet with a 24-foot "L" at the waterward end. The catwalks form two boat slips, which are 16 feet by 32 feet and 8 feet by 24 feet. These slips are more or less covered by a roof 32 feet by 24 feet. The boathouse is as yet incomplete. Miller's Creek flows into the St. Johns River near the base of the Hart Bridge in Jacksonville, Florida. This location subjects the project to DER's jurisdiction of Class III (recreational use) waters. It is also near Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. Mr. Hires' property is on the west side of the Creek. At low tide, the creek bottom is exposed, except for a channel which is located near the eastern edge of the creek. The channel is approximately 110 feet from the boat slips. DER's original permit denial stated: Use of the slips by boats would result in continuous bottom scour by prop dredging of the area within the slips and between the slips and the channel. This area is approximately 110 feet in length. Prop dredging creates turbidity and moves bottom material into other areas of the creek which can alter the physical, chemical and biological nature of the water body. The movement of bottom material into the existing channel will cause shoaling within adjacent sections of the creek, altering habitat and affecting flows of water and navigation. Increased turbidity in the water column results in reduced light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production which together with the resuspension of organic bottom material can increase oxygen demand and release pesticides, heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide into the water column. Therefore the project can be expected to have a long-term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources of the river. Specific Condition No. 7 of the proposed permit issuance document requires that: At no time shall any motorized vessel utilizing the dock disturb the bottom sediments causing prop dredging or generating turbidity which exceeds the State Water Quality Standard. Mr. Hires has indicated his intent to comply with Specific Condition No. 7 and sincerely believes that he will be able to do so. DER has adopted water quality standards within Ch. 17 F.A.C. These may apply to primary turbidity, that is, turbidity due to actual construction of the project, or secondary turbidity, that is, turbidity resulting from subsequent use of the completed project. Turbidity is the resuspension of bottom material into the water column. Prop dredging from motorboats causes turbidity and changes the bottom contours of a waterway. The amount of turbidity which is generated depends, among other things, upon the kind of sediment which comprises the bottom of a waterway. The bottoms of water bodies in Florida range from fine particles, called mud or silt, to larger particles, known as sand. The creek bottom of Miller's Creek is composed of mud and silt. Because of the lighter weight of mud and silt particles, they are more easily resuspended and stay resuspended longer than the larger, sand particles. The environmental impacts of turbidity depend, among other things, upon pollutants, such as heavy metals, which may become mixed with the natural sediments. Pollutants are more likely to be trapped in fine sediments, such as mud and silt, than they are likely to be trapped in coarser, sandy sediments. Runoff from Beach and Atlantic Boulevards and possible past contamination from a nearby shipyard make sediment contamination in Miller's Creek a distinct possibility. Neither DER nor Mr. Hires has performed a sediment study to determine whether pollutants were present. In approximately May of 1989, a small "access trough" was prop dredged over the 110 foot distance between the channel and Mr. Hires' dock. No permit was issued by DER for this dredging and, if a permit application for such prop dredging were submitted, no permit would be issued. The tidal range of Miller's Creek is approximately 1.5 feet. Thus, at high tide, the water is reasonably expected to be 1.5 feet above the creek bottom that is exposed at low tide. No study of the depth of the water in the access trough was presented to DER, although Mr. Hires estimated its depth at high tide to be 4 feet. Mr. Hires represented, and there is no evidence to refute his statement, that the maximum use of his own boat in this area over the last year preceding formal hearing (September 1989-September 1990) has been twelve times. Despite the credible evidence that the access trough was created by prop dredging, Mr. Hires maintained that it was not possible for his boat, which is equipped with a tunnel hull design, to further dredge the area because he can only operate his boat on idle speed on high tide in this area. Because the props on Mr. Hires' boat are recessed upward from the bottom of the boat, Mr. Hires maintained his boat would not further dredge the access trough or the remainder of Miller's Creek. However, without accurate information as to natural water depth and only vague information as to what might occur if the tide changed while Mr. Hires was out in his boat, what might occur if Mr. Hires used another boat, or what might occur if other types of boats docked at the Hires dock, Mr. Hires' information about his current boat does not constitute a reasonable assurance that no further prop dredging of Miller's Creek will occur. Mr. Tyler submitted that Hires could pole or row his boats from his dock to the channel when there is sufficient water so as to avoid prop dredging. Mr. Hires volunteered to post a bond to ensure that there would be no scouring from his use of motorized boats from his dock to the channel, but there was insufficient expert evidence to establish how high a bond would be reasonable or that DER would regard such bonding as any more substantial assurance than the applicant's policing himself under Specific Condition No. 7 as now drafted. There also was no evidence that bonding has been a successful inhibitor of prop dredging in the past, that any insurer is available to issue such a bond, or that Mr. Hires could post a sufficient cash bond. Upon the expert testimony of Jeremy Tyler and the keen observations of the lay witnesses, it is found that, through natural processes, the access trough may be reasonably expected to, with time, silt in and return to a depth consistent with the existing creek bottom. It is further found that prop dredging may be reasonably expected to cause adverse environmental impacts at this location. Upon Mr. Tyler's expert testimony, it is further found that Hires' dock and the dock's associated structures which have already been installed are not reasonably expected to cause any adverse environmental consequences. Contrary to DER's initial permit denial document, there is no vegetation in the area which might be adversely affected by shade from the dock and associated structures. If the pilings were driven into place at low tide, some temporary turbidity would have been generated by the dock and boathouse construction. However, no evidence of such turbidity can be seen at the present time. The only habitat effects of the constructed items and those planned but not completed would be the loss of the habitat which is displaced by the pilings themselves, an effect which, at this location, is inconsequential. The non-expert testimony of Petitioners with regard to endangered species was without appropriate predicate and is not probative with regard to habitat. No competent evidence was offered by Petitioners to suggest that the dock and associated structures themselves would adversely affect water quality or the public interest test criteria.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order establishing the Department's proposed permit issuance action as final, provided, however, Specific Condition No. 7 of the draft permit should read: "At no time shall any motorized vessel utilize the dock." DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioners' PFOF: Covered in preliminary material. Accepted. Subordinate. Accepted in part; remainder rejected as mere argument. Respondent Hires' PFOF: Covered in preliminary material. First sentence rejected as not proved. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part as set out in the Recommended Order. Third sentence accepted so far as it goes but is rejected as a whole for the reasons set forth in FOF 12. Accepted that the offer was made; rejected that it provides reasonable assurances. Respondent DER's PFOF: 1-11 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole. Copies furnished to: COPIES FURNISHED: Kay E. Gilmour Lois O. Gray 1347 Morier Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Johnny P. Hires 1321 Morier Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 William H. Congdon Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Building Permit No. 9210004557 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Daniel and Betsy Jones as owners and Russell D. Moore as contractor for the construction of a canal front vertical bulkhead and dock as a structural accessory to a single family dwelling is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondents, Daniel and Betsy Jones, are the owners of real property known as Lot 27, Section D (ext. to Hibiscus Lane), Sugarloaf Shores, Florida (Lot 27). Sugarloaf Shores is a legally platted subdivision. The Jones were, at the time of the formal hearing, constructing a single family dwelling on that property. The building permit for the construction of the dwelling is not at issue in this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. There is an extensive man-made canal system throughout Sugarloaf Shores subdivision that is several miles in length, is between six and ten feet in depth, and is approximately sixty feet in width. The subject permit is for construction where Lot 27 fronts this canal system and involves construction beyond the mean high water mark onto submerged lands. On June 26, 1992, Monroe County issued the subject building permit, Permit Number 9210004557, to Daniel Jones and Betsy Jones as owners and Russell D. Moore as contractor. The subject permit authorizes the construction of a vertical bulkhead designed to limit erosion together with a docking facility with davits and access to the canal system. Most of the neighboring lots in the vicinity of the project have vertical bulkheads with docking facilities. The bulkhead is desirable to prevent erosion of the canal bank at Lot 27 and pollution of the canal waters. The requested development would give the Jones safe access to the canal and provide private boating facilities. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan which complies with the Principles of Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Section 380.0552(7), requires Monroe County's land development regulations to comply with certain Principles For Guiding Development, including the following: (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat. * * * (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. ... Monroe County's comprehensive plan, which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission, is implemented through its adopted land development regulations, codified in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: * * * No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities; No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists; Section 9.5-4(W-1), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (W-1) "Water at least four (4) feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" means locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, "off-shore resources of particular importance" shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, to improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. * * * POLICIES 1. To prohibit land use that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. * * * To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Benthic communities exist in Sugarloaf Sound, such as rock-hard bottom, sea grasses, algae, and hard coral. Turtles, manatees, sharks, stingrays, eagle rays, snapper, pink shrimp, mullet, and other marine animals populate the Sound. Sea grass beds play an important role in water quality maintenance in the Keys through filtration, nutrient uptake, stabilization of the bottom, and as a habitat for commercially important species. The canal system for Sugarloaf Shores subdivision does not have access to deep water without crossing shallow sea grass beds with depths of less than four feet at mean low water. The operation of motor driven boats may result in damage to sea grass beds and shallow water marine communities through prop dredging. Although there is evidence of prop dredging in parts of Sugarloaf Sound in these shallow areas, it was not shown that the damage was done by boats traveling from the Sugarloaf Shores canal system and deep water. Whether a boat that may be docked at some future time if the permit is granted will cause damage to some portion of Sugarloaf Sound is speculation. Since 1986, Monroe County has adopted an interpretation of Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, and of Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, that would permit the construction of the subject project. That interpretation permits the development of marginal seawalls, vertical bulkheads and docks in subdivisions that were under development in 1986 if there is at least four feet of water at the terminal point of the dock at mean low tide. The dock that is the subject of this proceeding would, if permitted, terminate in water of at least six feet in depth at mean low tide. Monroe County's interpretation of the so-called "four foot rule" is that the rule was intended to restrict the development of boating access facilities in new, undeveloped subdivisions and to regulate proposed expansion of existing marinas and the development of new marinas. Monroe County's interpretation of its rules is that a vertical bulkhead and dock built on an individual family home-site, where a dwelling was already built or under construction, would have minimal effect on the nearshore water environment of critical state concern. Monroe County considers the subject application by the Jones to meet all of its permitting criteria. The subject project has received an exemption from permitting from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. The Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to issue a permit for the project with no special conditions. There is no definition of "docking facility" contained within the Monroe County Land Development Regulations or the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. It was not established that a bulkhead is a docking facility or that the construction of a bulkhead on Lot 27 should be prohibited under any of the theories advanced by Petitioner. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as the Jones's permit without Petitioner filing an appeal. This evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner should be estopped to appeal the subject permit, that Petitioner engaged in selective enforcement of its regulatory power, or that Petitioner otherwise brought the subject appeal for an inappropriate purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which approves the construction of the bulkhead. It is further recommended that the Final Order conditionally deny the permit, but specify that the County may approve the building permit at issue if there are channel markers to open water marked and approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 11th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucky T. Osho, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 J. Daniel and Betsy Jones 2515 Nela Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 Russel D. Moore Route #5, Box 600 Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Monroe County Attorney Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Suite 140 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 Robert Herman Monroe County Growth Management Division Public Service Building, Wing III 5825 Jr. College Road Stock Island Key West, Florida 33040 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Underwood Mortgage and Title Co., has filed a two-part application requesting a permit from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to conduct certain activities contained in the application. The first part of the application asks that the Respondent, Underwood, be allowed to construct a pier facility extending into the St. Lucie River adjacent to a condominium development known as the River Club Condominium. The condominium and St. Lucie River are located in Martin County, Florida. The proposal calls for portable water service and twenty to thirty amp electrical service to be provided to the dock area. The pier facility would provide fifty (50) boat berths for tenants of the River Club Condominium. The dock facility would accommodate boats of up to thirty-five feet in length. There are additional areas in the dock which would allow tenants of the River Club Condominium and their guests to fish from the dock and to pass their time by sitting on the dock. The application does not call for fuel services for the boat craft or for live aboard on those craft and it is not contemplated by the application that there would be sewage pumped out from the pier into the water body. The second part of the application requests a permit which would allow the removal of a sand spit located in Warner Creek, a tributary to the St. Lucie River, adjacent to the River Club Condominium property. The estimated amount of material to be dredged is four hundred (400) cubic yards. The original reguest contained an application for permit to construct a separate walkway on the southwest shore of Warner Creek but that request has been withdrawn. The Petitioner, Beacon Twenty-One Condominium Owners Association, Inc., is a member of a nonprofit corporation made up of tenants of the Beacon Twenty- One Condominium which is located adjacent to River Club Condominium with property fronting Warner Creek which affords access to Warner Creek. This group is opposed to the permit request made by Respondent Underwood as that permit request is presently constituted. Consequently, the Petitioner has filed a Petition in opposition to the permit request, leading to the de novo hearing conducted in this cause on February 14, 1980. The hearing was occasioned in view of the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Statement of Intent to issue the permit requested, which Statement of Intent to issue was entered on October 17, 1979. A copy of the Statement of Intent to issue may be found as Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. The challenge Petition is by letter drafted by Ed Thompson, who was the President of the Petitioner at the time the Petition letter was entered. The date of the Petition letter is October 29, 1979. The County Commissioners of Martin County, Florida, have indicated that they are without objection to the project as now proposed. In addition, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, stated that it is without objection to the project as proposed and made this position known through correspondence of January 25, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. Respondent Underwood's Exhibit "A" admitted into evidence is an aerial photograph taken by the Tax Assessor's office of Martin County and it depicts those buildings associated with River Club Condominium in a yellow color and the white overlay on this exhibit shows the proposed dockage. Respondent Underwood's Exhibit "B" admitted into evidence shows a drawing to scale of the shoreline at the project site. The lines of water depth below the mean low water line which would be available to accommodate the draft of the boats using the dockage and water surrounding that dock are also shown. The green color corresponds to three feet, brown corresponds to four feet and red corresponds to five feet or more. Respondent Underwood's Exhibit "C" admitted into evidence is the same as Exhibit "B" with the addition of an overlay drawn in a dark blue color which shows the proposed dock and dock area. The pier if constructed would be a distance of approximately 5,680 feet from the outer dock area, easternmost portion of the pier, to the eastern bank of the St. Lucie River. It is approximately 3,000 feet from that dock to the main channel of the Okeechobee waterway/intercoastal channel. Those boats coming out of Warner Creek from the area of the existing dock owned by the Petitioner pass within approximately two hundred (200) feet of the proposed dock of Respondent Underwood and would be operating in a depth of water of approximately five (5) feet or more when passing the pier. The sand spit which Respondent Underwood is requesting to remove is depicted in its Exhibit "D" admitted into evidence which is a photograph which has been blown up to show the nature of that spit. The removal of the spit as now requested would cause the creek bottom to be lowered to minus four (- 4) feet mean sea level, which is a differential of three (3) inches from the mean low water line in the area of Warner Creek where the spit is being dredged. The proposal calls for the removal of four hundred (400) cubic yards of materials; however, the amount to be removed to alleviate the spit has increased since the time of the application due to the events associated with Hurricane David and upland erosion. It is proposed that the dredging to be done will be done with an accompanying silt screen being utilized during the time of the dredging and the materials to be dredged will be used on the site of River Club Condominium, which is adjacent to the dredge work area. In reviewing the project, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, performed a biological appraisal and a report was rendered by the employee performing that function. The contents of that report may be found in Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The biological inspection was made in March, 1979, and was accomplished by the employee snorkeling in the area of Warner Creek to examine the waters and the bottom of the creek and the employee taking depth soundings from the mouth of Warner Creek up to the area of Warner Creek which is adjacent to Beacon Twenty-One Condominium. The observations of that employee and those of the applicant's witness establish that this project will not interfere with navigation in Warner Creek or in the St. Lucie River. The observations of the Department's employee establish that there is a distinct flow of water through the area at the mouth of Warner Creek which allows pollutants in that creek to be swept away into the St. Lucie River and the current is strong enough to cleanse the area around the proposed dock project site to the extent that no degradation of the water in the area of the project site can be expected. The areas of the project are located in Class III waters and those waters are not part of an aquatic preserve, nor are they "Outstanding Florida Waters." Warner Creek is a natural body and the lower reaches of that water body are inter-tidal to the St. Lucie River. The lower reaches of the creek are brackish in character being inter-tidal with the St. Lucie River. The upper reaches of the creek are fresh water in character. The sandbar spit to be removed is vegetated with transitional species of saltgrass and sea purslane. The base of the sandbar is bordered by a fringe of white mangroves and Brazilian pepper which in turn are bordered by a steep bank that rises five to six feet to the uplands. The soils in the sandbar are made of coarse sand. The soils in the general area of Warner Creek vary from compacted sand in the one to three-foot depths of the shoaled areas to layers of partially consolidated organic muck in the depths four to five feet. (The depths mentioned refer to depths at mean low water.) The brackish nature of the St. Lucie River which has been mentioned before is due to the saltwater which the river receives from the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lucie Inlet and fresh water which is received by virtue of natural storm water runoff and from the several flood control district canals draining Lake Okeechobee and farmland to the west. The shoreline of the St. Lucie River rises eight (8) to twelve (12) foot above the water line and it is characterized by sandy beach inter-tidal zones bordered by overhanding terrestrial vegetation with transitional vegetation made up of grasses, Australian pine, cabbage palm, sea grape and corn vine and clusters of red mangroves which occur intermittently along the shore line. There is occasional Spartina forming a narrow fringe at the high water line. Submerged grasses are not a normal occurrence in the river due to its turbid and tannic condition. There is some Cuban shoal weed which does appear in sparse patches within the shallow sandy areas of the river. The bottom soils in the shallow area which is the area zero to four (4) feet in depth, consists of sand intermixed with other low to moderate concentrations of muck. The area five (5) feet or deeper consists of partially consolidated muck and deteritus intermixed with shell fragments. Some of the species of fauna collected in the biological survey included Decapods (grass shrimp), Palaemonetes intermedius; pink shrimp Panaeus duorarum; blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; (Molluses) virgin nerite, Neritina virginea; Venus clam, Anomalocardia auberiana; mussel Ischaduim recurvum; oyster; (Fish) pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. Observations made by the person performing the biological assessment on behalf of the Respondent Underwood demonstrate that no live oysters are found in the area of the proposed dock in view of the desalinization which occurs due to the inter-tidal activity between Warner Creek and the St. Lucie River. Removal of the sand spit would cause the removal of the vegetation associated with that feature, nonetheless its removal would improve navigation and flow patterns associated with Warner Creek. Any turbidity problems that would be associated with the construction and utilization of the project are not expected to be violative of standards. This is due to the nature of the bottom of the water bodies in the area of the proposed project. No toxic materials in excess of standards are expected to be present at the project site. In the past manatees have been observed in the area of the St. Lucie River and the project as proposed would not be expected to deter the manatee in its efforts to gain entrance into Warner Creek if this effort was made; however, manatees have not been observed in the area of the project in the prior six (6) to eight (8) months leading up to the hearing date and nothing in the hearing leads to the conclusion that the project as proposed, notwithstanding the introduction of boat craft into the river at that area, constitutes such a risk for the manatee that the project should not go forward. This determination is supported by the fact that Warner Creek does not provide significant food resources for the manatee. It was shown that a certain amount of soil has eroded from the uplands into Warner Creek by being washed into the creek by rains and this has caused a confluence which is the sand spit sought to be removed, and the potential exists that soil may be introduced into the water at the area of the dock now proposed for construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, granting permit #05-134042-4, with the following amendments: Where the permit reads, "To install an additional 64 boat slips . . .", change to "To install an additional 21 boat slips, for a total of no more than 46 boats . . ." Add to the specific conditions attached to the permit, paragraph 7., to read: "The breakwater to be installed at the entrance of the northern basin will be angled outward along a line that, if extended, would intersect with the southeastern corner of the property on the north shore of the basin." DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Walker, Jr. 6175 North Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida 32940 Harry and Vivian Stahler Donald and Mark Stahler 6190 North U.S. #1 Melbourne, Florida 32940 Vivian Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns approximately five and three quarters acres of land adjacent to the St. Johns River in Putnam County, Georgetown, Florida. He has 198 ft. frontage on the river. He purchased the land in 1973 and since that time, periodic storms have caused his shoreline to erode in a half-circle configuration for a distance of about 15 to 20 feet landward to a depth of about 2 feet. To the south of his property is a boat marina. Boats utilizing that facility created debris which washed upon his land creating an unsightly condition. Additionally, wave action from the presence of numerous small craft contributed somewhat to the erosion problem. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Noting that both landowners to the north and south of his property had in existence previously-constructed bulkheads, petitioner determined that he would construct a similar bulkhead or seawall along his former shoreline and then reclaim the land that had been eroded by sand fill. He therefore contacted a contractor to obtain an estimate of the cost of construction. Petitioner denies requesting a pre-inspection of the proposed work by the Army Corp of Engineers and respondent, but the latter's records reveal that such an inspection was made late in 1974. At that time, Petitioner was informed that a permit would be needed to construct the bulkhead, but that his proposed position for it was excessively far waterward of the mean high water line and therefore would be objectionable. Although petitioner specifically denies ever having been told that he needed a permit, it is found that he was so informed by respondent's representative, (Testimony of Petitioner, Scott, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner proceeded to construct a wooden bulkhead approximately 180 feet long and extending approximately 15 feet waterward of the mean high water line. The fact of construction was noted by respondent's inspector on April 24, 1975, and thereafter on May 12, respondent informed petitioner that he should either apply for a permit or remove all portions of the bulkhead from below the high water line. On November 25,1975, petitioner obtained the conditional approval of the Board of County Commissioners, Putnam County, Florida, for a fill and bulkhead permit, subject to approval of an issuance of permits by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Board of Trustees, Internal Improvement Trust Fund. He thereafter on March 29, 1976, filed his application with respondent for a permit to construct a seawall and fill below the mean high water line with approximately 550 cubic yards of material. (Testimony of Scott, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 2,3) Respondent's inspector evaluated the application and submitted his report on March 31, 1976, recommending denial on the basis of significant adverse impacts associated with the project. However, the report stated that the construction of a rip-rap wall conforming to contour of the mean high water line would stabilize the water line and eliminate objections to the project. Specifically, the adverse impacts mentioned in the report were that backfill of the submerged area landward of the existing bulkhead would eliminate a portion of the littoral zone which is a site for nutrient transformation and stabilization. The elimination of the natural shore zone accelerates entrophication rates in the water body and resulting degradation of fish and wildlife resources. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Respondent's field inspector supervisor informed petitioner of the adverse report and suggested that the bulkhead be removed and rebuilt following the suggestion in the inspector's report. Petitioner did not agree to this proposition and therefore, on October 27, 1976, he was advised of respondent's intent to deny his application. The grounds for denial were that the seawall and proposed backfill would eliminate a tract of submerged land that stabilized sediments, functions in nutrient cycles and helps maintain water quality. Further, it was stated that destruction of this community would impair the ability of the affected submerged habitat to support fish and wildlife. It was further noted that the seawall would create an abrupt discontinuity in the existing shoreline and cause scouring of the littoral community. (Testimony of Scott, Petitioner's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the application of petitioner Joseph J. DeMuch be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph J. DeMuch Post Office Box 447 Georgetown, Florida 32039
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and the November 19, 2019, proprietary Letter of Consent for a 2,203 square foot dock should be issued as described and authorized by the December 6, 2019, Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, entered between Respondent Andrew Kent and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal in Romeo Point, Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. Petitioners use the waters of Doctors Lake for recreational purposes, and have navigated to and from Doctors Lake, or reasonably expected as riparian property owners to do so, via the permitted and dredged navigational boat access channel leading from the western canal to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. Petitioners have challenged the Consent Order that authorizes issuance of the revised general permit for a residential dock that bisects and severs the navigational boat access channel. Thus, Petitioners have standing under section 120.569. Mr. Kent is the owner of Lot 18 of the Romeo Point subdivision. Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18 in 2017, and constructed a home there, 2059 Castle Point Court, Fleming Island, Florida, in which he currently resides. Mr. Kent is a party to the Consent Order, and proposed recipient of the ERP and Letter of Consent at issue in this proceeding. DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 253, 373 (Part IV), and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, regarding activities in surface waters of the state, and in Florida Administrative Code Title 18, governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The BTIITF is a collegial body that holds title to sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public. Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.; § 253.001, Fla. Stat. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The SJRWMD “shall perform the staff duties and functions related to the review of any application for authorization to use board of trustees-owned submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the water management district has permitting responsibility as set forth in an operating agreement” between DEP and the SJRWMD. Id. Review and approval of general permits and individual ERPs in Clay County generally falls within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD pursuant to the July 1, 2007, Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP (“Joint Agreement”). DEP and the SJRWMD have been delegated the authority by the BTIITF to take final agency action on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, without any action by the BTIITF, with the delegated entity to be established by rule. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat. Rule 18- 21.0051(2) provides that DEP and the water management districts “are delegated the authority to review and take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the application involves an activity for which that agency has permitting responsibility, as set forth in the respective operating agreements.” Romeo Point Romeo Point is located on Doctors Lake in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The confluence of Doctors Lake with the St. Johns River is generally considered to be at the U.S. Highway 17 bridge, with Doctors Lake to its west, and the St. Johns River to its east. Doctors Lake is tidally influenced, with the range of tides generally being about one foot from high to low, but as much as 1.25 feet and as little as 0.8 feet depending on the phase of the moon. In addition, there are times when a confluence of a full moon, low tide, and winds to the east can pull water from the lake, which can result in even shallow draft vessels grounding in normally shallow areas unless they have access to a deeper water channel. In 2002, the Romeo Point property was purchased by Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for development as a residential subdivision. The Romeo Point subdivision included the western canal on which five waterfront lots were created. Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal. As part of the development, two permits were applied for and obtained from the SJRWMD. Mr. Goria, a licensed professional engineer, was part of the development team. SJRWMD Permit No 40-019-86850-1 authorized the stormwater management system for the Romeo Point subdivision. Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP separately applied for permits from the SJRWMD and the Corps for “a boat access channel and [ ] a bulkhead on the western property line to facilitate access to Doctors Lake.” Its purpose was, specifically, to allow access for the future homeowners along the western canal to Doctors Lake. The boat access channel followed the course of an existing, though somewhat narrower channel used by the previous property owner and others. SJRWMD issued Permit No. 40-019-86850-2 (the “Dash-2 Permit”) for “[d]redging of a boat access channel and construction of a bulkhead along a section of the channel at Romeo Point Subdivision.” The boat access channel extended from the mouth of the western canal northward along the shoreline in front of and past Lots 19 and 18, then turning to the west at Lot 17 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. The boat access channel was approximately 35 feet wide with 4:1 side contours, with its centerline about 30 feet off of the bulkhead. The Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit noted that “[t]he proposed dredging [of the boat access channel] will give water access to 5-lots along the western property line.” The SJRWMD Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit also established that, upon completion of construction, the “Final O&M [operation and maintenance] Entity” was to be the Romeo Point Homeowner Association. The boat access channel allowed vessels from the western canal to navigate around a cattail dominated shoal. Although the cattails no longer grow in the area, the shallow water shoal remains to varying degrees. Among the conditions made part of the Dash-2 Permit were that the permittee purchase 0.82 mitigation credits from the Sundew Mitigation Bank. The SJRWMD also issued a Consent of Use for state-owned submerged lands to Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for “Dredging of Boat Access Channel in Doctors Lake at Romeo Point - Permit # 40-019-86850-2.” The permittee was required to pay $2,978.75 to DEP for severed dredge material, with the SJRWMD permit number provided to DEP on the check and the cover letter. On December 16, 2003, the Corps issued Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW) to Floridays Development Group, Inc.,2 to “construct a single-family, residential subdivision and bulkhead, dredge a man-made canal and entrance channel into Doctors Lake, and also construct 7 new single-family docks.” The Corps permit required the purchase of 1.86 mitigation credits. The permit plans clearly depict both the western canal and the boat access channel into Doctors Lake. The Corps permit also permitted shoreline docks at Lots 18 and 19, with the permitted dock at Lot 18 to extend from the bulkhead to the edge of the boat access channel. The shoreline dock was sufficient to provide navigational access from Lot 18 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel. The docks along the boat access channel were permitted as part of the Corps permit to ensure those docks would not block access to the channel. Other docks were also permitted by the Corps for the Romeo Point subdivision that extended further into Doctors Lake to provide navigational access for lots that did not have direct access to the boat access channel. 2 Floridays Development Group, Inc., was a company owned by Mr. Goria that owned the membership interest in Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP. There was no dispute that the Corps permit constituted Federal authorization for the boat access channel. By sometime in 2004, all construction authorized by the permits, including the dredging of the boat access channel, was complete, and Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP moved to the marketing and sales phase. On October 3, 2005, and as contemplated by the Dash-2 Permit, the SJRWMD permits were transferred from Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP to Romeo Point Owners Association, Inc., for operation and maintenance. The transfer applied to both the stormwater permit and the boat access channel permit. There is nothing to suggest that the transfer to the owners’ association was improper or insufficient to transfer rights under the Dash-2 Permit. Navigation To and From the Western Canal When Petitioners bought property along the western canal, the boat access channel had been permitted and constructed for the specific purpose of providing those canal-front lots with reliable, deep-water navigable access to Doctors Lake. Persons owning, renting, visiting, or using those lots, or otherwise wanting to access the western canal, were customary users of the boat access channel. Water depths along the shoal that exists waterward of the boat access channel between the mouth of the western canal to the current location of the Lot 18 Dock were measured by DEP to range from 2 feet, 9 inches (33 inches) to 3 feet, 8 inches (44 inches) at a “rising tide towards high tide.” At the normal 12 inch tidal range, depths would be expected to range from 21 inches to 32 inches+/- at low tide. During full moons, the low tides could be as much as 0.25 feet (3 inches) lower over three or four days. Thus, the deepest area along the shoal could, on a monthly basis, be as shallow as 29 inches in depth. In order to address the issue of safe and reliable navigational access, conditions at low tide provide the best assessment of a waterway and the ability of boats to navigate in the area. Photographic evidence of Mr. Sheffler dragging his 20-foot boat through less than knee-deep water across the shoal at its deepest point near the Lot 18 Dock supports a finding that water depths across the shoal are, with regularity, insufficient to support safe navigation. In 2017, Mr. Sheffler purchased an existing home and boat lift on lot 23 along the western canal. The prior owner had previously kept a 24 and one half-foot boat on the boat lift. Mr. Sheffler kept a 21-foot Bayliner on the lift after he bought the house, which had a two foot, 10 inch (i.e., 34-inch) draft. He sold that boat with the thought of buying a larger boat for skiing, wakeboarding, and watersports with his four children. Those plans were shelved pending the resolution of this proceeding. Currently, Mr. Sheffler uses his father’s 19-foot Seafox center console boat with a 24-inch draft, which he used to navigate into Doctors Lake through the boat access channel prior to the time Mr. Kent constructed the Lot 18 Dock. He is able to navigate across the shoal at high tide, but otherwise the shoal presents an obstruction. In 2017, Mr. Davis built a home on lot 22 along the western canal that included a boat lift that could accommodate a 24-foot boat. Mr. Davis already owned a 19-foot Stingray boat with an inboard/outboard motor that he docked at his lot, and used the boat access channel to access Doctors Lake. Mr. Davis testified that, after July 4, 2019, when the Lot 18 Dock was substantially completed, he could not safely navigate around the dock, and that he ran aground on the shoal at low tide. His testimony is credited. Due to the difficulties in maneuvering his 19-foot Stingray across the shoal to the open waters of Doctors Lake, Mr. Davis postponed his planned purchase of a larger boat pending the results of this proceeding. Sadly, Mr. Davis passed during the course of the hearing, before he could buy the boat he wanted. Mr. Hudson is Mr. Davis’s son-in-law. He is an experienced boater, and has boated to the Davis home from Doctors Lake in his 20-foot Regal boat using the boat access channel. His boat is comparatively heavy, with an inboard/outboard motor and a 34-inch draft. Mr. Hudson was unable to easily and safely navigate to the Davis home after the construction of the Lot 18 Dock without grounding on the shoal at low tide. In 2017, Mr. Fuzzell purchased Lot 20 and Lot 21. Lot 20 partially fronts on Doctors Lake. Mr. Fuzzell constructed a house on each lot, each with a boat lift designed to accommodate a boat up to 26 feet in length. Mr. Fuzzell rents the house on lot 21, at which his current tenant keeps a 21-foot boat. Mr. Fuzzell built his house on Lot 20 with the expectation of purchasing a boat of sufficient size to put his family aboard, up to a 26-foot boat. Due to the blockage of the boat access channel by the Lot 18 Dock, the purchase was postponed and altered pending resolution of this proceeding. Mr. Ergle owns Lot 24 along the western canal. He has not developed the lot with a house or a boat dock. He is, nonetheless, a riparian owner. When he bought the lot, a primary reason was his expectation that he would be able to build a boat dock and keep a boat of around 24 feet. Mr. Ergle currently owns a small Boston Whaler, which he has used to visit his property. While the boat only has a 10-inch draft, Mr. Ergle has touched bottom along the shoal between the mouth of the western canal and the current Lot 18 Dock. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified to his familiarity with the area, and stated that “[i]f you were to come straight out from the channel, there's a shoal, shallow water out there, which I know about because I've gone through there. I wouldn't dare go that close to the shoreline because of how shallow it gets over that way.” Mr. Tomasi, a Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer (Ret.) visited the area in April 2019. He went through the area in Mr. Davis’s 19-foot Stingray, and testified that they “bumped bottom” with the boat’s hull at various places, including along the “deeper” areas along the shoal. The motor was tilted up as far as possible during the trip so as to avoid having silt sucked into the water intake which could damage the motor. Mr. Tomasi noted that, like bottom contours of any water body, “it's not a complete flat, glass bottom. I mean, you're going to have contours in the sea bed and there's going to be areas that get down. You're going to have some highs and some low areas out there.”3 He stated that, during the visit, “I never found a clear path to where I could come out going somewhere along that boat access channel and then be able to cut straight out without at some point bumping bottom.” It was Mr. Tomasi’s opinion that “[i]t's not a reasonable expectation that somebody should have to attempt to hazard their boat to get in and out of their dock or their canal.” His opinion is credited and accepted. The undersigned is not unmindful of the testimony of Captain Suber, who is every bit as worthy of respect as Lt. Commander Van Hook and Mr. Tomasi. Captain Suber visited the site at roughly low tide “a week or two” prior to the hearing in a “bay boat.” He testified that there were areas along the shoal that were not passable, but through trial and error, he was able to find a way out -- or rather a way in, since he was “out in the lake and looking in” -- without grounding. However his opinion regarding navigability was quite conditioned, providing that: Well, from -- from what I see, the waterway is -- you know, it is what it is.· It's shallow and you have to be cautious, but you can get in and out of that -- that canal at low tide. This is one of those areas where local knowledge is a -- is a must. Someone that don't know anything about the waterway right in this area, they probably would stay away from this. But if you live on this area of the waterway and you know the bottom out there, you should be able to get all of these vessels that have been in question in and out of there at any time by using caution If it's -- if it's an outboard, simpler, yes, all of them, any one that I would think would be able to get in and out of there. An inboard/outboard would be possible and probable. Inboards, those drafts on those are -- and they're so sensitive, you 3 Mr. Tomasi’s testimony supports a finding that, although DEP measured a maximum of 3.8 feet along the shoal at high tide, that does not establish 3.8 feet as a uniform depth around that point. Natural undulations could cause that depth to be more or less, which would explain the “bumping.” know, if I owned one, I probably would stay out of these swallower areas with one. Most people that have full inboards, they don't even want to try to get into places like that. Captain Suber’s testimony was worthy of belief. However, to the extent his opinion was that the Lot 18 Dock did not create an impediment to navigation, it was simply outweighed by other more persuasive evidence in the record. Purchase of Lot 18 Mr. Kent became aware that Lot 18 was on the market at some point in 2015, and engaged in a series of negotiations with the owners to purchase the lake-front property. After a period of unsuccessful efforts to purchase Lot 18, Mr. Kent “caught [the owner] at the right time,” and acquired the property in 2016. At the time of the purchase, Mr. Kent knew of lots on the western canal, but was not interested in them because “I didn’t want to be limited to the size of boat that I … used,” and “I wanted a long dock to put a -- I wanted a couple of boat lifts just like I do, just like the neighbors.” The line at which four-foot of depth in the boat access channel existed, and the point to which Mr. Kent would have to “wharf out” from Lot 18 to achieve four feet of navigable depth, was roughly 12 to 15 feet from the Lot 18 bulkhead. Around the last week of September or the first week of October 2017, prior to his construction -- or planning -- of the Lot 18 Dock, Mr. Kent, while on a walk around the neighborhood where he then lived, ran across his neighbors, Mr. Goria and Lt. Commander Van Hook. Mr. Kent knew that Mr. Goria had been involved in the development of Romeo Point, and took the opportunity to inquire about the area, and discussed his desire to build a long dock, similar to his neighbor’s dock to the north, extending from the shoreline of Lot 18 to the open waters of Doctors Lake. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that “we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17.” Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock,4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that “well, that's their problem. They can't stop me.” Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria “made it 100 percent clear on a two-way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. … access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake.” He testified to his recollection of the conversation that “I know [Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it up against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off.” He then stated that Mr. Kent’s “only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock.” When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent’s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, “I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. … Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it.” boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied, “Yes, sir, without a doubt.” Mr. Kent disputed his response, or even understanding, of the information provided by Mr. Goria, testifying unconvincingly that he thought Mr. Goria was talking about the western canal. Nonetheless, Mr. Goria provided clear and accurate information that a SJRWMD permitted boat access channel crossed the front of Lot 18 and provided residents in the area the 24-hour right to deeper water without restricting them to the tides, and that Mr. Kent was likely to have difficulty obtaining regulatory approval for his dock. While it is impossible to know what might have been going through his mind, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the boat access channel, and knew that the Lot 18 Dock as he wanted it would sever navigational access for residents along the western canal.5 The First General Permit Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, and proceeded to make application to DEP for the first general permit. Since the Romeo Point subdivision was subject to two SJRWMD permits, the Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP, dated July 1, 2007 (“Joint Agreement”), called for further permits affecting the area to be processed by SJRWMD. That did not occur. Mr. Kent hired C&H Marine, which prepared the application for the permit, submitted it to DEP, and ultimately constructed the Lot 18 Dock. The first general permit application called for the construction of “a single-family dock less than 2,000 sq. feet with one slip.” The application 5 Mr. Goria’s and Lt. Commander Van Hook’s testimony as to Mr. Kent’s statements, offered by Petitioners, constitute admissions of a party opponent, and are, therefore, not hearsay. § 90.803(18). Fla. Stat. Neither Mr. Goria nor Lt. Commander Van Hook has any direct interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and both were credible and persuasive. Their testimony is accepted, and supports the inference of Mr. Kent’s knowledge of the boat access channel and its effect on Petitioners prior to the permitting of the Lot 18 Dock. drawings showed that Lot 18 had 105 feet of frontage on Doctors Lake, and depicted a five-foot wide dock that extended 150 feet into Doctors Lake, with a 20-foot x 10-foot terminal platform and a boat lift totaling 865 square feet for a total structure of 1,665 square feet.6 The dock was depicted as being five feet above the mean high water (“MHW”) elevation. A 25-foot riparian setback was shown between the Lot 18 Dock and the adjacent property to the north. The boat access channel was at least six feet deep at its center, roughly 35 feet wide, and four feet deep only 12 to 15 feet from the bulkhead. Even a minimally competent investigation would have revealed the channel. However, the application identified underwater bottom contours and depths that gradually and evenly sloped from shallow at the bulkhead to four feet deep at the terminus of the Lot 18 Dock. As noted by Ms. Mann, “[i]t showed a smooth -- relatively smooth seafloor bed.” The length of the dock on the permit application drawings was not to scale, with the application drawing being shortened through the use of “continuation marks.” Those continuation marks subsumed the section of lake bottom through which the boat access channel ran. Thus, the channel was not depicted in the application. Regardless of intent or reason, by its use of continuation marks in the application drawings, the contractor quite effectively managed to conceal the channel from DEP.7 Since the application was being filed on his behalf, it was Mr. Kent’s obligation to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Kent, despite having been told of the permitted channel and of the existence of regulatory permits 6 There was no definitive measure of the width of Lot 18. Though the application indicated it was 105 feet, Mr. Kent testified that “I’ve seen 101. I’ve seen 106. I’ve seen 104. So I guess it depends where you measure. I have no idea.” DEP later measured the width as 101 feet. 7 Since Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent that the boat access channel was going to make it difficult to obtain regulatory approval for his dock, the omission of what should have been a patently obvious subsurface feature existing no more than 15 feet off of the bulkhead, and the replacement of that section of lake bottom with continuation marks, seems more than coincidental. authorizing its construction, failed in that obligation, resulting in an application that was, at best, misleading. Furthermore, even accepting that neither Mr. Kent nor the contractor knew of the channel before construction commenced, which is a stretch, its existence absolutely had to have become apparent early on in construction. Mr. Kent or C&H Marine had an obligation at that time to disclose to DEP that the application was false and inaccurate. Neither did so. Upon receipt of the first general permit application, Ms. Mann reviewed the SJRWMD GIS system to determine if there were permits within a one-quarter mile radius of Lot 18. The depiction of that radius on a map appears to encompass most, if not all of the Romeo Point subdivision. The SJRWMD GIS system did not show any permits within the one-quarter mile radius except for a dock permit related to a lot to the north of Lot 18. Ms. Mann did not check the linked permit associated with that lot. Had she done so, she would have discovered the Corps authorization for the boat access channel. DEP’s ERP Checklist incorrectly indicated that the Lot 18 Dock application “was not in a WMD permitted area.” If DEP had correctly noted that the SJRWMD had issued permits for the Romeo Point subdivision, DEP would have had to coordinate the Lot 18 Dock application with the SJRWMD. DEP issued the first general permit on June 17, 2019, to “construct a 1,615 sq ft private residential single family dock consisting of an access pier and a covered boat slip and terminal platform, within Doctors Lake, a Class III Florida waterbody,” which included the Letter of Consent, as well as a State Programmatic General Permit V-R1 on behalf of the Corps. Notice of the first general permit was not provided to Petitioners either by actual notice or by publication. Petitioners’ Notice of the Lot 18 Dock After the first general permit was issued, Petitioners’ became aware of the proposed Lot 18 Dock when, during a homeowners’ association meeting that took place prior to the commencement of construction, Mr. Kent advised Mr. Davis that construction of the Lot 18 Dock was scheduled to begin the following week. That disclosure triggered a second meeting at Mr. Davis’s house that included the president of the homeowners’ association, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sheffler, Mr. Kent, and several other homeowners to discuss the fact that the Lot 18 Dock would block the boat access channel. Mr. Kent’s solution was not to delay the construction of the Lot 18 Dock to come to a solution, but rather, “if you guys ever[ ] get stuck and cannot navigate, I’ll participate in dredging your canal.” Petitioners made their concerns known to Mr. Kent well before the first piling was set for the Lot 18 Dock. Nonetheless, knowing then with certainty that a boat access channel existed along the shoreline in front of Lot 18, knowing that the application was misleading by omission, and knowing of his neighbors’ objections, Mr. Kent made no effort to disclose that information to DEP, and proceeded with construction. Petitioners advised DEP of their concerns on or about June 28, 2019, which included a description of the boat access channel,8 Petitioners expressed their objection to the Lot 18 Dock on the ground that it cut off their access to the permitted boat access channel. DEP took no action, despite then having knowledge that the application was false. Case No. 19-4192 On July 17, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for hearing to challenge the issuance of the first general permit for the Lot 18 Dock. The petition alleged that DEP provided them with an extension of time to file the petition 8 The exact date on which construction commenced was not disclosed. However, on July 4, 2019, the boat access channel was still passable, with only string marking its path. Thus, by June 28, 2019, DEP had information showing the falsity of the application that should have triggered some inquiry before the boat access channel was severed. on June 28, 2019, which is corroborative of testimony that Petitioners advised DEP of the boat access channel on that date. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2019, the petition was referred to DOAH and assigned as Case No. 19-4192. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the Lot 18 Dock crossed the existing navigational channel that Petitioners used to navigate motorized watercraft to the open waters of Doctor's Lake and the St. John's River, and created unnecessary restrictions on Petitioners’ access to those navigable waters. Case No. 19-4192 was set for hearing to commence on October 17, 2019. On September 27, 2019, DEP filed a Notice of Intent to Change Agency Action and Motion to Put Case Into Abeyance, in which DEP stated that it had taken enforcement action on the Lot 18 Dock as built. The Notice stated that DEP intended to require that Mr. Kent apply for another permit, which Petitioners would be able to contest. On December 18, 2019, the presiding ALJ relinquished jurisdiction over Case No. 19-4192 to DEP. The Lot 18 Dock As-built The Lot 18 Dock, as constructed, deviated materially from the dock as permitted. As important as the fact that the Lot 18 Dock was not compliant with the permit is that, as pilings were being set during the period of construction, it could not have been overlooked9 that the proposed dock was bisecting the deeper water boat access channel. However, no one advised DEP of the existence of the channel, an omission that, given the facts and the record of this proceeding, could only have been intentional, and could only have been to conceal the existence of the deeper water channel from DEP and other regulatory entities while construction of the Lot 18 Dock was completed. 9 It is impossible to conclude that a marine contractor, regardless of their degree of competence, could fail to notice that they were setting pilings in six feet of water rather than two feet of water. The Lot 18 Dock was constructed to a length of 193 feet, exceeding the 160-foot length (which includes the ten feet of terminal platform) depicted in the permit application drawings. Going out that extra length also, as described by Mr. Kent, “gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth.” Therefore, instead of the dock ending at the permitted four-foot (48 inches) depth, he now had up to 53 inches of depth, all the better for a bigger boat. Mr. Kent testified that he directed the contractor to build out to that length, because it would be cheaper to have it done while the equipment was on-site, rather than waiting to have the extra length permitted. The as-built lift was 36 feet in length, rather than the permitted 34 feet, and will hold a boat of 32 feet.10 The walkway of the dock was measured by DEP to be two feet, seven inches above MHW rather than the required five feet as permitted. The as-built structure also included four unpermitted pilings and a second boat lift. Mr. Kent believed that the pilings would be “permittable,” so went ahead and authorized the contractor to install them without waiting for a permit. The second lift will “probably hold a 26-footer.” C&H Marine installed cleats on several pilings for the terminal platform/boat lift that were suitable to allow an additional vessel to tie-up to the dock. Those cleats were -- purportedly -- installed without Mr. Kent’s knowledge, and have been removed. Mr. Kent was on vacation for some of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock.11 Upon his return, the dock was completed despite Petitioners’ objections, and despite a DEP request that he stop work. 10 The size of the boat could likely be greater, since the covered slip/lift was built two feet longer than permitted. 11 Mr. Kent testified to a general lack of knowledge of the course of the construction due to his vacation. However, he knew of the extra pilings, and approved their installation because he thought they would be “permittable.” He testified that during his vacation, he contacted Michelle Neely at DEP to inquire about a “residential bridge,” a discussion memorialized by Ms. Neely on July 24, 2019, in correspondence to Mr. Sheffler, though there was no direct evidence that he advised her of the boat access channel. He was on the site (“I walked out there. And at some point -- I can't give you a date as to when. It was before the big piece was built. That's for sure.”) and authorized C&H Marine to extend the Lot 18 Dock from 160 feet to its as-built 193 feet, stating that “[w]hen I asked him to extend it, I knew that wasn’t permitted yet, but it was permittable.” These issues do not directly apply to the issue of The August Compliance Inspections Reacting to information from Petitioners, DEP conducted site inspections of the Lot 18 Dock on August 21, 2019, and August 27, 2019. The as-built conditions described above were noted by DEP at those times, as was the fact that the dock “appears to be approximately 19 ft from the northern neighbor’s apparent riparian rights lines.” The ERP Inspection Report noted “Significant Non-Compliance” with the Lot 18 Dock. The report identified the SJRWMD permit “to allow for boat access,” but claimed “[d]uring the review process, inquiry on the SJRWMD ERP GIS page did not reveal the existing [sic] of a SJRWMD permit.” The ERP Inspection Report recognized that the western canal homeowners “claim[ed] the dock impedes their ability to use the channel along the shoreline, that was part of the SJRWMD permit #40-019-86850-2, and access Dr’s Lake.” The DEP staff recommendation was to allow Mr. Kent to keep the Lot 18 Dock as constructed, with a monetary fine and a minor corrective measure. The ERP Inspection Report noted that if Mr. Kent wanted three boat slips on the Lot 18 Dock, he would need to apply for a single family lease. The ERP Inspection Report made no further mention of the boat access channel or the SJRWMD permit, and gave no recognition or accommodation for the seemingly legitimate concerns of the western canal homeowners. Based on its observations, DEP issued Warning Letter No. WL19-213 to Mr. Kent noting that the dock “was constructed in a manner not consistent with your permit application and its supporting documentations.” As was the case with the ERP Inspection Report, the Warning Notice made no mention of the boat access channel, the SJRWMD permit, or Petitioners’ navigational concerns. whether the Lot 18 Dock impedes navigability, which it would have done whether it was 93 or 193 feet in length, and whether it has one or three slips. However, these issues demonstrate a general conscious disregard for the permitting authority of DEP, and affect the weight to be given Mr. Kent’s testimony. The October Compliance Inspection On October 15, 2019, following a complaint of a further unpermitted addition, DEP conducted a third compliance inspection. Previously, according to Mr. Durden, DEP “negotiated” with Mr. Kent, advising him that if he removed the unauthorized cleats that had been installed on the Lot 18 Dock, DEP “could issue the permit, because then he would have only two boat slips.” The October inspection revealed that, after DEP issued the Warning Notice, and despite his having been advised of the two-slip limitation, Mr. Kent installed an unpermitted floating personal water craft (PWC) dock midway along the span of the dock that was suitable for landing a jet-ski. Mr. Durden testified that “[h]e removed the cleats [which had been installed to create a third slip on the unpermitted second boat lift pilings]. And then a period of time passed and then he decided to install the ski lift.” Counting the unauthorized PWC lift, the Lot 18 Dock had -- and currently has -- three boat slips under DEP’s jurisdiction. The installation of the unauthorized floating dock while permitting and enforcement were ongoing suggests an ongoing and blatant disregard for DEP’s permitting and enforcement authority. The Consent Order On December 19, 2019, DEP and the BTIITF entered into a Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, with Mr. Kent to resolve all issues, including the unpermitted third PWC dock. Mr. Kent was charged a fine of $2,750.0012 to resolve the issues of non- compliance. Despite by then having information that established, as a matter 12 Mr. Kent was allowed to keep the Lot 18 Dock’s unauthorized “extra 30 feet [and corresponding] 4 or 5 more inches of depth,” the unpermitted second boat lift, and the floating PWC dock that was constructed after enforcement proceedings had commenced, without any corrective measures whatsoever, all for the modest “fine” of a $2,750, of which $250 was the “permit fee.” By the time the Consent Order was executed, DEP knew the Lot 18 Dock was severing a permitted navigational channel, and should have known, through months of involvement with Petitioners, including DOAH Case No. 19-4192 that the of law, that the Lot 18 Dock had three slips and did not qualify for a general permit, DEP nonetheless issued the revised general permit, including the Letter of Consent and water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Kent was not required to obtain an individual ERP or a single family lease. At the final hearing, DEP admitted that an individual ERP is required and, in the course of this de novo proceeding, asks that the Lot 18 Dock be measured against those standards. DEP made no mention in the Consent Order of the boat access channel. The Consent Order did not note that severing the channel forces Petitioners to have to navigate through shallow and unsafe waters to get to Doctors Lake from their homes, on which they may -- and have -- run aground. The Consent Order did not acknowledge the existence of the SJRWMD Dash-2 Permit or the Corps permit. DEP had knowledge of all of those things both as a result of its involvement in DOAH Case No. 19-4192 and as evidenced by its August 21, 2019, ERP Inspection Report. The Boat Access Channel as a Navigational Channel The boat access channel was permitted as a navigational channel by the SJRWMD and the Corps, and permission to use state owned lands for that purpose was granted by the BTIITF. When the boat access channel was dredged, its entrance to and from Doctors Lake was marked with two PVC pipes, which remain in their original positions. It is not uncommon for people to mark channels with PVC pipe. While the pipes are by no means “regulation” Coast Guard approved channel channel was customarily used, marked, and provided Petitioners with their only means of reliably safe navigation between the western canal and Doctors Lake. Rather than acknowledging its mistake in permitting an illegal dock, regardless of the circumstances, DEP reacted with casual diffidence, questioning the validity of the SJRWMD’s Dash-2 Permit, overlooking the Corps permit, ignoring that the dock encroached into, and severed, a permitted, marked, and customarily used navigation channel, and generally minimizing Petitioners’ legitimate rights of navigation. Perhaps, as surmised by Mr. Sheffler, DEP was “trying to figure out ways to, you know, kind of save face.” However, the rationale and merits markers, and are not particularly distinctive, they are private markers that are known by and provide navigational and boating information to lot owners and other customary users in the area for whom the boat access channel was designed, permitted, and constructed, and who are customary users of the boat access channel. Ms. Mann testified that “[i]t was [DEP’s] position that this was not marked not in a way that we would determine it to be in a navigable channel. PVC poles in the water don't really mean anything.” However, DEP has no rule defining what constitutes a marker sufficient to establish a “marked channel,” or that would establish a limitation that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. A preponderance of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the PVC pipes were, prior to its severance by the Lot 18 Dock, channel markers known to persons in and using the area as establishing the entrances to the boat access channel. Ms. Mann continued in her testimony, stating that “we saw plenty of people who went without needing to use the navigation channel, so we determined it was a customarily used navigation channel, that it was not needed.” At the time Ms. Mann visited the site, boaters could not use the navigational channel, since it was blocked. Boaters would not be relying on the markers since they marked the mouth of the channel on the other side of the Lot 18 Dock. Furthermore, Ms. Mann was on-site at close to high tide. That persons may, by necessity, be forced to navigate through unsafe waters or not navigate at all is no evidence that the navigation channel “was not needed.” The evidence in this case establishes by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence that the boat access channel was, before the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, both marked and customarily used. It provided safe and reliable navigable access to the western canal for residents -- or lack thereof -- of DEP’s actions are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is not an enforcement case. and their families and guests. Though sparsely used by the general public for fishing or boating, there is nothing to restrict such use. The boat access channel is, by all factual measures, a “navigational channel” as described by DEP rule. Effects on Navigation When Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, he had every bit as much access to the open waters of Doctors Lake as did Petitioners. He could have, as contemplated and approved by the Corps permit, constructed a parallel dock along the Lot 18 shoreline and freely accessed the navigable waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel in any vessel capable of operating in six feet of water. A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the record establishes that the depths along the shoal are not sufficient during all normal periods to safely navigate without a reasonable likelihood of grounding. That evidence is persuasive and accepted. Mr. Durden credibly testified that a person is “allowed to wharf out until you reach a depth of at least four -- well, 5 feet, which [DEP] would consider a safe depth to be able to have a boat.” Furthermore when asked whether it is “the department's policy for issuance of consent to use sovereign land, that you're entitled to get to 4 feet for your dock,” Ms. Mann responded that “I believe that is actually part of our regulatory 62-330.” Mr. Durden testified, and the evidence supports, that the boat access channel varied from between six feet to seven feet, 11 inches in depth when he conducted his on-site measurements at a “rising to high tide.” Thus, even at the lowest lunar tides, the boat access channel provided safe navigational depths to the owners of the western canal lots, and to Lot 18, of greater than four and a half feet. Ms. Mann candidly admitted that before the Lot 18 Dock was constructed, Mr. Kent had more than four feet of access for a dock and boat at his bulkhead. Mr. Kent admitted that Petitioners “don’t have the same water access -- deep water access to Doctors Lake that they had before [he] built [his] dock,” and that “their canal is 4½ feet deep. The channel goes to 6 foot deep, and now that 6-foot depth isn’t there all the way.” In fact, the only means of accessing Doctors Lake in the absence of the boat access channel does not even approach 4 and one half feet in depth, being in most places less than half that at low tide. Ms. Mann’s testimony that “[w]e determined that vessels had plenty of space to maneuver around Mr. Kent's dock” was simply and substantially outweighed by countervailing competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The impairment to navigation in this case could not be clearer. Mr. Kent had no interest in purchasing a canal-front lot because he “didn’t want to be limited” in the boat he could use -- with the Lot 18 Dock being able to accommodate two boats and additional PWC, with one lift suitable for a boat of a minimum of 32 feet, and the other which would “probably hold a 26-footer.” However, neither DEP nor Mr. Kent seemingly have any issue with the fact that Petitioners were previously not limited in owning any vessel that their slips could accommodate (generally up to 24 to 26 feet), and now they are limited to smaller, shallow draft boats that, even then, occasionally ground on the shoal. DEP and Mr. Kent both minimized the effect of the reduced depth for Petitioners to navigate, seemingly arguing that a depth of 29 to 32 inches -- the deepest point along the shoal at or near low tide13 -- is just as good as the four-foot depth acknowledged as being “a safe depth to be able to have a boat” 13 The maximum depth measured by DEP along the shoal was three feet, eight inches at a rising to high tide. Subtracting the normal 12 inch tidal range results in a depth of two feet, eight inches+/- (32 inches) at low tide. Every month for several days during the full moon, tides may vary by up to an additional 0.25 feet (3 inches) on both cycles. Thus, depths at the deepest point along the shoal are regularly reduced to 29 inches+/-. Furthermore, Mr. Sheffler measured depths in the vicinity of the Lot 18 Dock that were closer to two feet (24 inches). Given natural variations that occur on the bottom of natural bodies of water, both sets of measurements are credible. and safe for navigation by Mr. Durden and Ms. Mann, is just as good as the 53 inches of depth gained by Mr. Kent from his unpermitted dock extension, and is just as good as the six-foot depth of the boat access channel. The shallower, unsafe depths across the shoal are not just as good. Even Mr. Kent admitted that inches have navigable value, testifying with regard to the settlement of his illegal dock extension: I paid that fine. But I did that because it gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth. I wouldn't have wasted my money to extend my dock if I didn't get that. ... I'm just saying that I paid the fine and did the extra 30 feet because it got me 4 or 5 more inches of depth. The natural variation of bottom depths, as described by Mr. Tomasi, reveals the fallacy of basing determinations of navigability on small changes in depth measured by inches that can be counted on one hand, and the folly of trading clearance in feet for clearance in inches. Respondents argue that Petitioners should just be satisfied with smaller boats, or plan their outings to correspond to the tides,14 or trim their motors up to the point they may lose control,15 or carefully thread their way through slightly and almost imperceptively deeper areas on the shoal, all while avoiding collision with the Lot 18 Dock16 -- none of which would guarantee that they would not ground their vessels. Meanwhile, DEP proposes to allow Mr. Kent, who already had deep water access to Doctors 14 Mr. Tomasi testified that due to the likelihood of hitting bottom while crossing the shoal at low tide, Petitioners would have to pick the times for boating based on the tides, both coming and going. If they went out at a falling tide, they would have to wait until the tide started coming in to get back. Mr. Tomasi credibly and correctly opined that safe navigation “shouldn't be restricted to tides nor should you be restricted to a moon cycle.” 15 Mr. Hudson is an experienced boater, and credibly explained that to “trim up” a motor on a boat causes navigation to become more “challenging,” and that “with the propeller pushing water behind you, you lose a certain percentage of control or navigation.” Mr. Tomasi echoed that observation. Their testimony is credited. Lake via the boat access channel, to maximize his ability to have more and bigger boats, to the detriment of Petitioners and anyone else desiring to safely access the western canal. Petitioners have not sought permission to recreate in unusually large vessels or vessels not suitable for the area. They are simply asking to be able to safely navigate to and from their homes in boats six to eight feet smaller than Mr. Kent’s 32-footer, i.e. generally the size of his spare. This case is not one in which Petitioners are requesting that Mr. Kent relinquish his riparian right of navigation so that they can have larger vessels, or vessels inconsistent with normal family recreation. Rather, it is Mr. Kent’s desire to have larger and more vessels that has created this dispute. The evidence is clear that Mr. Kent had -- and has -- an unrestricted ability to navigate to and from Lot 18 via the boat access channel. Thus, although the Lot 18 Dock is a clear impairment of Petitioner’s rights to navigation, the denial of the permit and Letter of Consent would create no impairment of Mr. Kent’s right to navigation, and in no way would constitute an unreasonable infringement on Mr. Kent’s riparian rights. As a result of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, the boat access channel, a marked, customarily used, and validly permitted and constructed navigation channel, for which mitigation credits were purchased and severance fees were paid to the state, has been entirely severed with seemingly no concern for the adverse effects on navigation suffered by the persons for whom the ability to safely navigate was intended. The position espoused by Respondents in this case simply creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary impediment to navigation, violating both the plain- language of, and the public policy behind DEP’s ERP rules, and the BTIITF’s sovereignty lands authority. 16 Winds or seas can push a boat around, a situation that is exacerbated when the motor is trimmed up. Therefore, one would generally not want to get close to the Lot 18 Dock, or any Letter of Consent Rule 18-21.004(7)(g) provides that “[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard.” As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence in this proceeding firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock has created a navigational hazard by severing the permitted, marked, and customarily used boat access channel, thus, forcing Petitioners and other persons wanting to use the waters in the area to cross the shallow shoal, which is both unsafe and unnecessary. Ms. Mann testified that, in determining whether the Lot 18 Dock is the “minimum size” necessary, “we had taken that to look at the other docks in the area, and if he is on average with those other docks, then we consider it minimum size for that area.” However, the definition of a “minimum size dock or pier” in BTIITF rule 18-21.003(39) includes a comparison to other permitted docks as but one factor for consideration. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: “Minimum-size dock or pier” means a dock or pier that is the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming based on consideration of the immediate area’s physical and natural characteristics, customary recreational and navigational practices, and docks and piers previously authorized under this chapter. The evidence in this case firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock is not “the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming.” Mr. Kent had reasonable access to the water for navigating by using the boat access channel, and could have used any vessel with a draft of six feet or less from a shoreline dock as permitted by the Corps in 2003. The Lot 18 Dock did not take into consideration the area’s customary recreational and navigational practices, which previously relied on the boat access channel. Other previously authorized docks in the dock, with the potential to be pushed into the dock, damaging the boat, the dock, or both. area are not appropriate comparators because none have access to the boat access channel, and none encroach into and sever a permitted navigational channel, as does the Lot 18 Dock. The Lot 18 Dock is not, as a factual matter, a “minimum size dock or pier.” The Lot 18 Dock preempts substantially more sovereignty submerged lands than necessary for Mr. Kent to wharf out to four feet of navigable water. Environmental Issues Petitioners argue that substantial resources, predominantly seagrasses, exist in the area along the shoal, which seagrasses would be churned and scoured by vessels navigating across the shoal, and that the Lot 18 Dock is, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Since 1994, submerged vegetation has declined in Doctors Lake as a result of drought, invasive species, and hurricanes, particularly those in 2017 and 2018. DEP notified the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FFWCC”) of the Lot 18 Dock application. DEP did not receive comments from FFWCC within 30 days, which generally indicates that it did not have objections. See § 20.331(10), Fla. Stat. The response, if any, from DACS was not disclosed. On June 8, 2020, DEP conducted a limited environmental survey of the shoal area adjacent to the Lot 18 Dock and in front of the western canal. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there is plant or animal life in the area, if the shoal area is of any environmental importance, and if it contains any endangered or protected species. Nine samples were taken at various locations along the “top” of the shoal, including dredge samples, a dip net sample, and one Shelby core sample. All were taken from a boat. The DEP sampling revealed that the substrate consists mostly of sand, with less than 2 percent muck or organic material mixed in or on top. There was little animal or plant life, except for some juvenile clams of unknown species that appeared in several of the samples. There was one sample with two small plant fragments, but it was not known whether they rooted in the bottom or if they drifted in. Mr. Durden testified that “[t]here certainly was no substantial amount of vegetation found anywhere.” There were no endangered or protected species. DEP concluded that the shoal is of low environmental value and suitable for authorization for a permit. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Estes conducted a study of the shoal area to determine if there was a presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the area. He was there less than a half an hour. He generally concentrated his study area to the shallower area of the shoal closer to the mouth of the western canal from the 2’9” to 3’3” readings as depicted on Joint Exhibit 10. He did not pay much attention to the area around the Lot 18 Dock. Mr. Estes found a “very sparse coverage” of eelgrass, which is a species common in Doctors Lake. He also found some clams between 4 and 5 centimeters on average, which he believed to be adults. Mr. Estes was not able to opine whether the clams were important to a blue crab fishery in the area since it was outside of the scope of his study. Mr. Estes could not state that the area was of any current ecological significance. Rather, his testimony was limited to an opinion that conditions at the site were suitable for reestablishment of eelgrass. He believed that boats crossing the shoal could leave “prop scars” which would interfere with submerged vegetation recruiting back into those areas. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Lot 18 Dock, or navigation across the shoal, will interfere with the current environmental functions of the area, will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or will adversely affect fishing and recreation rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying an environmental resource permit for the Lot 18 Dock, whether it be the revised general permit authorized in the December 6, 2019, Consent Order or an individual ERP; denying the November 19, 2019, Letter of Consent or other form of state lands authorization for the Lot 18 Dock; and requiring measures to reestablish the boat access channel and Petitioners’ rights of navigation in recognition of their riparian rights of navigation and the valid St. Johns River Water Management District Permit No 40-019- 86850-2, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Zachary Roth, Esquire Ansbacher Law Suite 100 8818 Goodby's Executive Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32217 (eServed) Andrew T. Kent 2059 Castle Point Court Fleming Island, Florida 32003 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
